Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

THE GREEN, ABERDEEN (BOOTS THE CHEMISTS LIMITED) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Shrewsbury Pickets

Mr. Brittan: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has decided on his response to requests to recommend the exercise of the prerogative of mercy in the cases of Eric Tomlinson and Dennis Warren who were convicted in December 1973 of conspiring to intimidate workers on building sites at Shrewsbury and Telford.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): I would refer the hon. Member to my reply on 13th November to Questions by my hon. Friends the Members for Paddington (Mr. Latham), Darlington (Mr. Fletcher) and Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding).—[Vol. 881; c. 143–4.]

Mr. Brittan: I welcome the Home Secretary's written answer stating that he will recommend interference with sentences only on the basis of the consideration that the courts have not been able to take into account—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is not this case sub judice?

Mr. Roy Jenkins: It is indeed the case, Mr. Speaker, that the two men concerned have applied for leave to

appeal to the House of Lords. The matter is under consideration by the Court of Appeal.

Mr. Speaker: In those circumstances the House had better proceed to the next Question.

Mr. Carlisle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With respect, the Question asks the Home Secretary whether he proposes to exercise the prerogative of mercy. That may have nothing to do with the hearing before the House of Lords or the Court of Appeal, or with any application to appeal to the House of Lords.

Mr. Speaker: I think that this is a matter for my discretion. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman would need to persuade me—and, indeed, it would take him some time to persuade me—that that is not so. I think that we had better leave the matter where it is.

Mr. Arthur Latham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you undertake to give the matter some thought and, if necessary, allow the Home Secretary to answer the Question if you feel that the points of order are valid?

Mr. Speaker: I shall consider that matter.

Mr. Spriggs: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are not asking the Home Secretary to interfere with the judicial proceedings of our courts, which we hold in the highest respect and regard, but we are asking for the Home Secretary to exercise the prerogative of mercy. For this reason, Sir, I ask you to reconsider your decision.

Mr. Ashton: Further to that point order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the Labour Conference to be held next week, may I remind you of your previous decision regarding thalidomide? The subject was originally ruled sub judice, but the decision was afterwards altered and the matter was discussed in this House.

Mr. Brittan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you take into account the fact that the Written Question on this subject which has already been answered relates to a similar matter, and was asked and answered at a time when the legal position on appeal was identical to the present situation?

Mr. John Mendelson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you reconsider your decision on the question whether the Minister can be questioned on the prerogative of mercy? If such questions are to be ruled impossible because of the existence of other proceedings and those other proceedings take a very long time, the exercise of the prerogative of mercy will become meaningless, because the time spent in prison will be equal to the time saved—as if the prerogative of mercy had never been exercised. On those grounds, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to reconsider the matter and allow questions to proceed.

Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. On the basis of what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), and other comments which have been made from the Labour benches, and in view of the time element, will you give careful consideration to this matter today to enable a statement to be made either tomorrow or early next week, so that to some extent we may liaise with the Labour Party conference next week and also carry out our duties in this House?

Sir K. Joseph: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the crucial importance for this country—for all our people and not just for one party conference—of the rule of law, will you take further account of the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle), namely, that in written form this Question has already been allowed to proceed?

Mr. Speaker: I shall certainly consider all these matters. I understand that there is an appeal pending against conviction and sentence. It appears that in those circumstances discussion of the exercise of the prerogative of mercy might be damaging to the people concerned. However, I shall certainly consider the matter.

Mr. Brittan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: I must protect the position of other hon. Members as to questions. I shall take any further points of order on this matter, if necessary, at the end of Question Time.

Later—

Mr. Speaker: I said that at the end of Questions I would allow my ruling on Question No. 1 to be raised again. Does any hon. Member wish to raise a point of order on it?

Mr. Britton: Would you, Mr. Speaker, apart from ruling substantively on Question No. 1, think it appropriate on another occasion to make a statement generally relating to the operation of the sub judice rule on matters of this kind, because, on the basis of the ruling that has already been given, the position is that a Written Question relating to these matters was answered? The Home Secretary answered my Question and the matter arose only on a supplementary question today. In these circumstances, will you give consideration to giving the House further guidance in any event?

Mr. Skinner: When you are considering the question of the precise ambits and parameters within which we can discuss this matter, Mr. Speaker, will you explain matters to the House, either tomorrow or early next week, so that we can know precisely how much can be said at Question Time and in debates on a matter which is so fundamental and important to the Labour movement? We believe that unless we get guidance of some kind it will be necessary to take care of this matter in some other form.

Mr. Latham: Before the matter gets too complicated about the sub judice rule generally, which I know is often a matter of contention, may I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that what you have been asked to do and what you have agreed to do is to consider whether you can discern a distinction between an issue of sentence and conviction and the separate issue, as many of us understand it, of the exercise of the prerogative?
It will indeed be helpful to the House if, whatever other issues are raised, we can have a fairly simple ruling in relation to that one issue.
May I ask you two further questions, Mr. Speaker? First, when you deliberate upon these points, is it something that you undertake in seclusion, or are you open to representations? Secondly, should you decide, on reflection, that there is the distinction that we are asking you to draw, can some procedure be


adopted whereby this Question, which was No. 1 on the Order Paper to the Home Secretary, comes back to the House much more quickly than would be the case if we waited for the Home Office next time round?

Mr. Carlisle: As the Member who originally raised the point of order, may I say, Mr. Speaker, that although I fully accept your ruling, with respect, I believe that what followed shows that there is a considerable amount of doubt and obscurity about the actual working of the sub judice rule with regard to questions on the Order Paper? Therefore, may I support my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) and ask whether you will give further consideration to this matter and give a ruling on the limits of the sub judice rule at a later stage?

Mr. Speaker: Of course I shall carefully consider what has been said, but, if I may say so straight away, I think that the rule is very simple. It is contained in the Fourth Report from the Select Committee on Procedure, 1971–72. The Committee said:
Your Committee share the view of the Committee of 1962–63 that, in relation to all courts exercising a criminal jurisdiction"—
that is the difference between this case and the thalidomide case—
to courts martial, and to Tribunals under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921, there is a presumption that matters awaiting or under adjudication may be prejudiced by question and debate in the House.
As far as I understand it, the two gentlemen concerned have been convicted. They have appealed against the conviction. I do not know whether they are guilty or innocent. It would seem to be quite contrary to this Report from the Select Committee on Procedure that I should allow any debate or question on this matter.
There are other, wider issues. I think that I ruled in the last Parliament but one that the fact that there was a criminal case proceeding against certain people should not prevent discussion of the broad national issue involved. If the issue of penalties for conspiracy and that sort of thing is sought to be debated, it certainly can be, but without reference to this specific case. However, I do not think that I want to take up more time

of the House now. I shall certainly think about what has been said and consider whether it is necesssary to make a further ruling.

Mr. Spriggs: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will know that Questions were submitted to the Table Office relating to the prerogative of mercy. May I ask you to inform the House whether it was known at the time that the Questions—including my own—were originally submitted that the matter was sub judice, or even whether it was known officially whether an application had been made to appeal to the House of Lords?

Mr. Speaker: As regards the original answer, it is clearly stated in the Home Secretary's reply that since the Question was tabled leave to appeal had been sought.

Mr. Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham) specifically requested that you consider the question of receiving representations. As you have indicated that you will give the matter further consideration, I wonder whether you will make it clear now whether you are prepared to receive representations on this issue.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the case that you and your predecessors have at all times been willing to discuss any matter that comes within Mr. Speaker's prerogative provided that due notice is given and a proper approach has been made? I have never found any difficulty in making an approach to Mr. Speaker over the last 30 years.

Mr. Speaker: That is indeed the case. I am very willing to meet any Member or any group of Members privately to discuss these matters. I do not consider them in seclusion.

Mr. Ronald Bell: When you are giving consideration to this matter, Mr. Speaker, in relation to the Report from the Select Committee on Procedure, will you have in mind that the question whether the royal prerogative of mercy—it is merely an application of a royal prerogative to pardon—should be exercised is not a matter that is before any of the courts, that any variation in punishment could


be irrelevant to whether the prerogative is exercised, and that in the past the royal prerogative has been exercised sometimes at an early stage in the proceedings?
In the past, if I remember correctly, our practice has been merely to exclude points of order or Questions about the exercise of the royal prerogative in relation to capital sentences until the sentence is carried out, but in other cases, however undesirable it may have been to ask a Question, it has not actually been ruled out of order.

Mr. Speaker: I shall be grateful if the hon. and learned Gentleman will convey his views to me, perhaps in writing, giving his precedents and views. I guarantee to consider them carefully.

Race Relations Act

Mr. David Stoddart: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his intention to introduce legislation to amend the Race Relations Act.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I am reviewing the working of the Act and will announce proposals for amending legislation in due course.

Mr. Stodart: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the Lords' decision on the Preston Docks and Working Men's Club case has further compounded the damage done to race relations by the Charter case? Will he take into account this aspect of the matter and give an assurance that he will bring forward legislation early in the new year?

Mr. Jenkins: Clearly the House of Lords decision is a factor which must be taken very closely into account in any review of the legislation, but, as I have indicated, I should prefer to do this in conjunction with certain other matters which I think were ready for review in any event, with a view to producing amending legislation in due course. I cannot give my hon. Friend the promise that legislation will be introduced in the new year. We have to get through the sex discrimination Bill. But we shall give priority to race relations legislation after that.

Mr. Churchill: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable disquiet in Lancashire and through-

out the country at the case of Mr. Sherrington? Will he undertake to uphold the rights of every British citizen, no matter what his colour may be? Is he also aware that it is intolerable that there should be discrimination on grounds of colour against British subjects? Is he aware, finally, that he will certainly have support from some hon. Members on the Opposition benches should he take steps to amend the Act?

Mr. Jenkins: I take note of the forthright views of the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill). He hesitated only over the word "some". In our approach to this matter I believe that we shall have the support of all Members on the Government benches and, I hope, of as many as possible on the Opposition benches.

Mr. Bidwell: May I remind my right hon. Friend that there is no such thing as "the Race Relations Act"? There are two Acts—those of 1965 and 1968—and what is really needed is bringing into one comprehensive whole the meaning of Section 6 of the 1965 Act, which was designed to outlaw the propagation of race hatred.

Mr. Jenkins: I am aware of Section 6 of the 1965 Act, and I shall consider it in any review. I remind the House that I was the original promoter of the 1968 legislation, although it did not fall to me to carry it through all its stages. I believed that the 1965 Act needed strengthening. At present, there is a substantial case building up for strengthening the 1968 Act. As I have already indicated, though I am grateful for its views, I do not altogether share the views of the Select Committee of which my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) was a distinguished member. I wish to go further than the Select Committee did.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Since both the 1965 and 1968 Acts are totally objected to in principle by all reasonable people, will the Home Secretary realise that the only sensible way of amending them is to repeal them entirely?

Mr. Jenkins: I am afraid that my definition of "all reasonable people" and that of the hon. and learned Gentleman do not often coincide.

General Elections (Advertising Campaigns)

Mr. Grocott: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek powers to enable him to control the amount of money spent on national advertising campaigns by organisations with undisguised political preferences at General Elections.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summerskill): We are aware of concern about this subject, but my right hon. Friend does not consider that it would be appropriate to introduce legislation until this matter has been considered by a Speaker's Conference.

Mr. Grocott: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a serious anomaly in the electoral law, in that it provides for the strictest possible control over the expenditure of an individual candidate in his constituency but allows at national level a complete free-for-all, with organisations like Aims of Industry spending £500,000 on Conservative Party propaganda which ultimately is paid for by the consumer in higher prices? Does my hon. Friend agree that until this defect in our electoral law is sorted out it will be very difficult to hold genuinely fair elections?

Dr. Summerskill: I sympathise with what my hon. Friend says, but it is not always easy to draw a line between political propaganda and, as the case may be, informed or uninformed comment. Any limit imposed on political expenditure at large on such advertisement or comment could be an intrusion on freedom of expression. We have to weigh in the balance freedom of expression and the necessity to impose restrictions on expenditure.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: The hon. Lady has said that this is a matter which may be considered by a Speaker's Conference. Are we to take it that this Government, unlike the one who were in office for six months, will ask to have it set up?

Dr. Summerskill: The decision to set up a Speaker's Conference is taken after consultation between the Leaders of all three parties—

Mr. Speaker: With the agreement of the Speaker.

Judith Ward

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in which prison Miss Ward is detained.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: It is not the practice to make public reference to the location of individual prisoners. I am, however, writing to the hon. Member with this information.

Mr. Adley: I am grateful for that reply, but does not the Home Secretary consider that people like this person are enemies of the State? Might not it be in the national interest in future to consider recognising their claim that they are politically motivated by seeking to accuse those who commit such crimes of treason? Will the right hon. Gentleman take this point seriously and discuss it with the Law Officers?

Mr. Jenkins: I find that supplementary question wholly muddled. I do not follow the relevance of it. When I have pronouncements to make about members of the IRA, I make them without hesitation, but there is no point in trying to compete in violence of language where it is not called for by the terms of the Question. Neither does the Question relate to the law of treason, which is under review but is not of direct relevance here.

Urban Aid

John Cunningham: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to announce his decision on financial allocations under the urban programme; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon): My right hon. Friend hopes to make known by the end of the year which projects have been approved for grant aid under current phases of the urban programme.

Dr. Cunningham: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that West Cumbria was given a miserable allocation under the last phase of the urban programme by a previous administration? Is he aware, further, that as a special development area with associated educational priority areas and a community development project, it has special problems of urban deprivation? Will he look


closely this time at projects submitted to him for aid? Does he agree that in making his decisions and allocations, a clearer indication should be given to people of the reasons underlying those decisions?

Mr. Lyon: I am aware of my hon. Friend's criticism of the allocation. He has made it known to us. Like the importunate widow, his criticism is falling on sympathetic ears. None the less, in the present allocation we have received 1,300 proposals costing £21 million under Phase 11, and we have only £4 million to pay out. Under Phase 12, we have 240 applications costing £55 million, and under that phase we have only £3 million to pay out. Someone will have to go begging.

Mr. Lane: In view of the proved value of small-scale urban aid projects, how far does the hon. Gentleman believe that he will be successful, as we were on the whole, in protecting the programme from the general stringency in public expenditure?

Mr. Lyon: That difficulty does not arise with us on this allocation. We know how much we have to dispense. There is no question of a cut in this year's allocation and, so far as I am aware, in any future allocation.

Parliamentary Boundary Commissions

Mr. Model: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied with the terms of reference of the Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries Commission; and if he will make a statement.

Dr. Summerskill: The terms of reference of the parliamentary boundary commissions, which are set out in the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Acts 1949 and 1958, already allow the commissions a good deal of latitude in their work. If there are any suggestions for improvement in the redistribution rules we should be glad to consider how these might best be examined.

Mr. Madel: Does the hon. Lady feel, in the case of English constituencies, that the boundary commission should make more frequent alterations to constituencies regardless of local authority boundaries, so that the average constituency

has an electorate of about 60,000 and not, as at present, some with 30,000 and others with 90,000? Is not the present position unsatisfactory?

Dr. Summerskill: I appreciate that there is a wide variation in the size of constituencies. It is difficult for the commissions to review constituencies with very large or very small electorates in complete isolation, because of the unavoidable repercussions that this would have on neighbouring constituencies. It is best for the commissions to consider all constituencies together.

Sir David Renton: Do not the terms of reference require the commissions to take note as soon as may be of changes in local government boundaries? Will the hon. Lady invite the attention of the commissions to the fact that substantial changes were made in the local government boundaries with effect from 1st April of this year and that action should be taken as soon as possible to revise the parliamentary boundaries accordingly?

Dr. Summerskill: The commissions are aware that local government reorganisation has thrown many constituency boundaries out of line with local government boundaries. The commissions seem likely to report in 1979, after the local government boundaries commissions have done their work.

Conspiracy

Mr. Newens: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to limit the grounds on which individuals may be brought before the courts charged with conspiracy.

Mr. Nigel Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied with the operation and application of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: We are aware of concern over the law of conspiracy: both the common law and the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875. The general law of conspiracy is under urgent review by the Law Commission, and we shall consider any desirable changes as soon as is practicable.

Mr. Newens: Does my hon. Friend agree that the way that the severity of penalties can be increased considerably as a result of charges being preferred on grounds of conspiracy has been amply demonstrated in the cases of Dennis Warren and Eric Tomlinson, which Mr. Speaker is to consider? Is there not a need for tremendous urgency in dealing with this issue so that similar cases will not occur which will outrage large numbers of the population of this country?

Mr. Lyon: I am well aware of the concern about that matter. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that one of the provisional proposals of the Law Commission is that the maximum penalty for conspiracy should not exceed the penalty for the substantive offence when only one offence was contemplated in the conspiracy. I think that that would deal with the point that he has in mind.

Mr. Lawson: Is the Minister aware that considerable concern of a different kind exists throughout the country, namely, that the citizen and the innocent worker need to be protected from intimidation, violence and vicious behaviour of the kind that occurred in the building strike of 1972? Is he also aware that we on the Opposition side of the House look to the Home Secretary to uphold the rule of law in this country, since it is manifestly clear that we cannot rely on his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment?

Mr. Russell Kerr: Mrs. Jill Knight.

Mr. Lyon: I am afraid that, in view of Mr. Speaker's ruling, I cannot comment on that case. However, in any review of the law on picketing inevitably there would be a restriction in law upon the use of violence or intimidation. There is no disagreement about that at all.

Mr. Lee: Another objection to the present growth or concept of conspiracy is that it has enabled the law on evidence to be circumvented in many ways. Will that be reviewed when legislation to revise the law is introduced?

Mr. Lyon: We have that factor in mind. How far it would fall to be

reviewed in any revision of the law relating to conspiracy is a matter for decision.

Sir K. Joseph: Will the Minister of State adopt the more robust tone adopted by his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on relevant occasions in dissociating himself entirely from the view expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) on the outrage that is felt by those who feel that violence has been unjustifiably punished by the courts? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a sense of outrage was more widely felt among the majority of the people in this country against the violence and intimidation that the courts found had been used in that industrial dispute?

Mr. Lyon: Violence and intimidation are wrong in any situation, including a picketing situation. There is no dispute between both sides of the House about that. That is not what my hon. Friends are saying.

Terrorism and Murder

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has given any further consideration to the question of the legal penalties available for the sentencing of those convicted of acts of terrorism or of murder of those in the service of the Crown; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I keep all these matters under review, as I said in answer to a supplementary question by the hon. Gentleman following a Private Notice Question on 8th November.

Mr. Miller: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is a growing demand in the country for a greater measure of protection for people subject to these attacks and for the introduction of a deterrent? Does he also accept that even those of us on this side of the House who are abolitionists by conscience have been reluctantly driven to the conclusion that there is a need for the reintroduction of the death penalty?

Mr. Jenkins: I think that the hon. Gentleman is wrong, although I respect the view that he has put forward. I ask him to read and study carefully the speech made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) when he moved the abolition of the death penalty in Northern Ireland


15 months ago. The right hon. Gentleman moved in a reverse process from the hon. Gentleman, having been a retentionist, because he had come to the conclusion that to retain the death penalty in Northern Ireland would increase the risk to the security services, the Army, the police and others concerned with public duties.

Mrs. Knight: Has the Secretary of State any comment to make on the legal judgment of my noble Friend Lord Hailsham that the crime of terrorism could, under present law, call for and receive the death penalty?

Mr. Jenkins: I was not aware that the hon. Lady's noble Friend had delivered a legal judgment on this matter. I thought that his opinion was delivered at a Conservative Party Press conference, which is not the normal forum, even for a party which so ostentatiously expresses belief in law and order, for the delivery of legal judgments.

Prisoners (Earnings)

Mr. Norman Lamont: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will allow prisoners to earn larger sums of money while in custody.

Dr. Summerskill: We are anxious to improve the opportunities for prisoners to earn higher rates, but at the same time we have to consider the cost of this against other demands on the limited resources available.

Mr. Lamont: Does the Minister agree that it would help prisoners to adapt to the outside world if they had the incentive to earn an adequate amount of money and could leave with the money that they had earned rather than the inadequate social security grant that they receive at present? Will she review particularly the arrangements for those coming towards the end of their prison sentences? May I also ask whether the review will consider the vexed question of the national insurance stamp?

Dr. Summerskill: I agree that the opportunity to earn more money through increased output, effort and skill is an essential factor in the development of prison employment as an effective form of penal treatment. A review of our policy in this respect, which will cover the point made by the hon. Gentleman,

is being carried out and it is intended that it should be completed in the near future.

Mr. Molloy: Long-term prisoners, while in prison, often acquire new skills and standards of craftsmanship which would help them enormously when they come out. Is this information made available to would-be employers? Are they made aware of the standards that long-term prisoners acquire to enable them to fit into normal life and make a worthwhile contribution?

Dr. Summerskill: That information is certainly available. Many prisoners, while in prison, obtain certificates and recognised qualifications in various spheres.

Mr. Alan Clark: Regardless of whatever provision the Minister may think appropriate to help prisoners to earn more money, may I ask for an assurance that that will not extend to allowing them to profit from the sale of memoirs, recollections, biographies and other scripted items relating to the misdeeds that brought them into prison in the first place?

Dr. Summerskill: I am afraid that nothing can be done to prevent an exprisoner writing what he likes after he has left prison.

Football Pools

Mr. Ashton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to compel football pools firms to inform punters and return the bets of all entries which arrive after 3 p.m. on Saturdays; and whether he will implement paragraph 62 of the Interdepartmental Working Party on Lotteries.

Dr. Summerskill: The Government have not completed their consideration of the working party's report. My right hon. Friend cannot yet say whether he will wish to propose any legislation to bring the rules of football pool competitions under stricter control.

Mr. Ashton: Will the Government please get a move on, after a year? Is my hon. Friend aware that if only 1 per cent. of entries are late £2 million of punters' money is kept back by the pools, without a fair bet? Is it not time that


rules on pools came under the Gaming Board instead of local authorities, because the pools have complete carte blanche?

Dr. Summerskill: The working party's report is fairly complicated. It deals with a wide range of subjects, some of them very controversial. It is necessary to consider the whole of football pool legislation and not deal with it piecemeal.

Gambling

Mr. Pardoe: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate from information available to him, the expenditure on gambling in the United Kingdom; and if he is able to compare this expenditure per head of population with that in other industrial countries.

Dr. Summerskill: The estimated expenditure on gambling in the United Kingdom in 1973, excluding sums returned in the form of winnings, was about £441 million, or about £11 per head of the population aged 18 and over. Comparable figures for other countries are not available. It is estimated by the Gaming Board that the total turnover is about £2,350 million.

Mr. Pardoe: Will the hon. Lady accept from me that we now spend more per head of population on gambling than any other country in the world? Would she care to ask her right hon. Friend, as a noted historian, why this might be, and whether there is any connection between this tendency and the decline of a nation? Will she say why the Government have steadfastly refused to use this splendid tendency to enhance the revenue to the national Exchequer and thereby reduce the Government's deficit?

Dr. Summerskill: Questions on taxation of gambling should be directed to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As to the morals, the principle underlying gambling law is that there should be as little interference as possible with the individual's freedom to gamble, but there should be provisions preventing fraud, abuse and the excessive stimulation of gambling.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will my hon. Friend say on what basis the figure of £441 million is worked out? Does it include all forms of gaming—gambling,

horse-racing, the Stock Exchange? Many of us on this side of the House believe that more than the figure given by my hon. Friend is turned over in the course of a few weeks on the Stock Exchange.

Dr. Summerskill: I sympathise with the view behind my hon. Friend's question. But the figures I gave relate principally to horse-racing, dogs, cricket, boxing, elections, football pools, casinos, bingo and lotteries.

Prisons (Control Units)

Mr. Cryer: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the use of control units involving solitary confinement for a minimum of 90 days at Wakefield and Wormwood Scrubbs prisons.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement about the introduction of special control units at Wakefield and other prisons, and the methods of allocation of prisoners to such units.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I would refer my hon. Friends to the reply which I gave to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) on 14th November.—[Vol. 881, c. 195–6.]

Mr. Cryer: I appreciate that there have been recent changes, but will my right hon. Friend assure us that there has been no breach of Section 51 of the 1964 Prison Regulations, which limits solitary confinement to 56 days? Does he accept that imprisonment, in addition to punishment, involves the principle of rehabilitation, and accept that solitary confinement and the wrecking of a man mentally will not assist in his rehabilitation into society after leaving prison? Will my right hon. Friend therefore give consideration to ending this barbaric practice of solitary confinement for 90 days and abolishing the two control units?

Mr. Jenkins: Certainly if I thought that there was any question of a breach of prison rules I would not condone that. I do not think that confinement is fully solitary, for the reasons I have given. I am placing a statement in the Library—it may be there already—showing the exact position, and we can discuss it further.
As the House will be aware, I have introduced two safeguards. I ask the House also to consider that there is a real problem here—a problem not of punishing individual prisoners but of dealing with a position in which one or more prisoners may seek to disrupt the whole life of prison in a way which makes it impossible for the staff to conduct business and impossible for other prisoners to live under a tolerable régime. This is a real problem, which causes me much concern, and I shall continue to keep it under review.
I believe that in the changes I have announced I have met the major and legitimate doubts. There was never any question of secrecy. What was being done has always been announced clearly, both by my predecessor and myself.

Mr. Norman Fowler: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that he has a great deal of support on this side of the House and that the setting up of the two units followed serious disturbances in our prisons? Does he agree that prison officers who already work under very difficult conditions also have some rights in this matter?

Mr. Jenkins: Yes, I do. I said that before the hon. Gentleman said it. I am glad to welcome him to the Opposition Front Bench. I recognise the rights of prison officers. I also recognise that there is the important job of considering the conditions which prevail in our prisons.
I am certainly anxious that these measures should be used with the utmost restraint. It is the case that only three prisoners have been transferred. I have introduced the two safeguarding measures.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Does my right hon. Friend agree that even taking account of the problems of these control units, the principles of natural justice should apply even to prisoners? Does he further agree that, given the scale and extent of punishment involved in the allocation of control units, a decision by a board of visitors to allocate a prisoner to such a unit should involve the ordinary procedures of natural justice, namely, the right of representation for the prisoner before the board and the right to challenge evidence on which it is proposed that he should be allocated?

Mr. Jenkins: I do not think that it would be possible to deal with questions of allocation on a basis that would amount almost to a court of law. This has never been the case. I assure my hon. Friend that to do that would make the administration of the prison service almost impossible. I have, however, made it clear that there has to be a positive recommendation from the board of visitors. It would not necessarily follow that if there were such a recommendation a prisoner would be so transferred. Our procedures are likely to be more restricted than those applied by the board of visitors, but they could be overridden only by a personal and publicly announced decision on my part, or on the part of the Home Secretary of the day—a power that would be used with the utmost limitation.

Mr. Beith: Does the Home Secretary agree that many of us understand the need for some form of special control provision in the absence of a concentration policy in which difficult prisoners are being dispersed? Does he accept that such a substantial departure in policy calls for fuller discussion in the House than is permitted by merely presenting it in the form of a statement in the Library?

Mr. Jenkins: I have already answered a Question—admittedly by way of a Written Answer—on this matter, and we have now had several exchanges again. If the House wishes to discuss the matter further by way of an Adjournment motion or by other appropriate procedure, that would seem to be a sensible method of proceeding, and we would welcome an opportunity of further discussion of this admittedly difficult matter.

Mr. Abse: Is my right hon. Friend aware that despite the mention he made about the lack of secrecy, it does not inspire any confidence in this claim to read, in last week's report on the work of the Prison Department for 1973, of an attempt being made to ward off the charge of secrecy? It was not implicit in the original statement of the former Home Secretary that the men would stay months, and not weeks.
Can my right hon. Friend explain why the recommendations of the Radzinowicz Report, which went so carefully into the whole question of segregation units and enabled those of us who were members


to see segregation units in Europe and the United States, appear to have been completely put on one side? Segregation units, which can be barbaric in some circumstances, although valuable in others, depend upon the characteristics and safeguards of the régimes that are categorised. Will my right hon. Friend note that the new safeguards he has proposed still do not meet those proposed in the Radzinowicz Report?
We appreciate that there is a need for surveillance in these matters, but will my right hon. Friend understand that it is very easy for lower grade prison staff to thwart and frustrate the most liberalising hierarchy?

Mr. Jenkins: I know of my hon. Friend's great knowledge and interest in these matters, but he will accept that it is impossible for me to answer his points other than in a speech. I cannot deal with the points in answer to a Question, but I take note of what my hon. Friend says. Segregation units and control units are not the same thing, but what my hon. Friend says underlines the fact that a short debate on some occasion when these matters could be further explored would be a useful means of dealing with the subject.

Mr. Carlisle: Does the Home Secretary not agree that not only are these control units a necessary means of dealing with the small group of prisoners who are determined persistently to ferment trouble but that they are a far better solution than the possible alternative of the fortress-type prison once recommended? If I may put one critical question in respect of the units, does the right hon. Gentleman think, on reflection, that he ought to consider the minimum length of time people are kept there and ask whether 90 days is somewhat too long?

Mr. Jenkins: As I am sure the hon. and learned Member will be aware, that is precisely one of the two points to which I addressed myself in the statement on 14th November. The first point dealt with the introduction of the new element of the board of visitors and the second was that 90 days plus 90 days in slightly less restricted circumstances should not be mandatory, but that the position of the prisoner should be reviewed from time to time. I also said that in the event of

some misdemeanour there should be no automatic recession to the beginning of the period without a consideration of the question whether it was serious enough to justify such action. I have introduced an element of flexibility for which the hon. and learned Member asks.

Arrested Persons

Mr. Gould: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider seeking to give statutory effect to that part of the Judges' Rules which guarantees the right of an arrested person to have access to a solicitor.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: My right hon. Friend has at present no proposals for legislation on this subject.

Mr. Gould: Is the Minister aware of the study which has just been made on this subject, which confirms the widespread impression that the police ignore the rules in many cases? Does he agree that there is little point in having a so-called rule which is ignored in practice and which is not enforceable by the courts?

Mr. Lyon: My hon. Friend's question points to the difficulty, which is not that of having a rule but, rather, of seeing that it is enforced. What we are doing is discussing with the police how the rule can be better enforced administratively. I hope that that will lead to an improvement in the situation.

Mr. Lawrence: Is the Minister aware that it is the experience of many practitioners at the Criminal Bar in London that this rule is being honoured far more in its breach than in its observance, and that some steps ought to have been taken a long time ago to make sure that the rule was observed in its spirit? Will he say how long chief constables have been considering the proper administration of this rule?

Mr. Lyon: All I can tell the hon. Gentleman with certainty is that we have had the matter before us for the period that we have been in office. We are bringing pressure to bear to see that the rule is enforced among all police forces.

Capital Punishment

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how


many letters he has received since 1st March 1974 urging the restoration of some measure of capital punishment.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Rather fewer than 1,000.

Mr. McCrindle: Leaving aside the right hon. Gentleman's own view, which I respect, does he not agree that the majority of British people would be in favour of the restoration of capital punishment, at least with respect to the murder of a policeman or a prison officer? In these circumstances, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the use of the referendum machinery, which is now developing in Government circles? Otherwise is there not at least a risk that there will be a considerable separation between the views expressed by this House and those expressed by the majority of the people whom we purport to represent?

Mr. Jenkins: No, Sir. The idea of having different categories of murder according to the victim or to the form of the crime has been tried for nearly 10 years and found to be almost universally unsatisfactory, both by abolitionists and retentionists. Further, while I take note of all correspondence which I receive—and the number I have mentioned is substantial but not huge—in 1966 when I was previously Home Secretary I received more than twice as many letters in the course of three days. Subsequently the House, with a Conservative majority in the Parliament of 1970, voted by a majority of two to one in the other direction. These are matters on which all Members ought to apply their best judgment and then vote honestly.

Mr. Greville Janner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is no evidence whatever that the restoration of the death penalty in respect of these crimes, which we all deplore, would in any way reduce their number?

Mr. Jenkins: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend on that point.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: As an abolitionist who agrees with the right hon. Gentleman about the difficulty of categorising degrees of murder, may I ask whether it would not be better if, instead of making jokes about what Lord Hailsham said

in another place or elsewhere, we had some clarification of the position with regard to the law of treason so that we knew whether that would attract the death penalty in cases of terrorism? These are important matters, deserving serious attention.

Mr. Jenkins: Of course they are, but the hon. Gentleman must not be too sensitive. It is not sensible to talk about a statement at a party political conference as being a judgment. What is clearly the case is that Lord Hailsham made it clear, wherever he did it, that the law of treason is far from clear. What would be agreed by the whole House is that if it were thought right—about which I would strongly protest—to introduce the death penalty for acts of terrorism, it should be done by a straightforward vote of this House and not by resurrecting an archaic and unfair law.

LAW OFFICERS

Mr. Rost: asked the Prime Minister if he will replace the Law Officers.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): I have been asked to reply.
I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave on 11th November to the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing).—[Vol. 881, c. 34.]

Mr. Rost: In the next Prime Minister's Honours List will the first "Clay Cross" be awarded to the Attorney-General or the Leader of the House?

Mr. Skinner: If my right hon. Friend does have discussions with the Law Officers, will he ask them to explain why the Attorney-General has not answered my letter about what I consider to be a breach of election law regarding the use of the Court Line plane "Halcyon Days" by the Leader of the Opposition in the February election? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the time limit of 35 days for payment of expenses was exceeded by approximately six months? Since the Attorney-General is taking a considerable time to answer me, will my right hon. Friend ask for an urgent investigation to see what is taking place?

Mr. Short: I shall certainly ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether he is in a position to answer my hon. Friend's letter.

Sir P. Bryan: Why has the right hon. Gentleman still made no arrangements for the Attorney-General to explain to the House how he reconciles his advice against the reprieve of the Clay Cross councillors with the course taken by the Government?

Mr. Short: The letter to which the hon. Gentleman refers was not addressed to the Government, and there is no ministerial responsibility for it.

MINISTERIAL BROADCASTS

Mr. Ashley: asked the Prime Minister how many ministerial broadcasts he has now made since assuming office.

Mr. Edward Short: I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend has made three ministerial broadcasts since March, Sir.

Mr. Ashley: Will my right hon. Friend ask the Prime Minister in any future broadcast to refer to our system of compensation, which is so archaic and outrageously unjust that many thousands of people who are gravely injured are now denied compensation of any kind? Will he ask the Prime Minister to call for the Pearson Royal Commission on Compensation to make an interim report on the victims of car accidents? Will he give an assurance to the House that in any future legislation the Government will seek to ensure that, where appropriate, the recommendations of the commission are retrospective?

Mr. Short: I know of my hon. Friend's great interest in this and I shall certainly pass on to my right hon. Friend his suggestion about the interim report. I cannot say anything about the Royal Commission.

Mr. Tom King: In view of the obvious importance to this country—endorsed by the Government—of the miners' productivity scheme, will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Prime Minister has totally failed to give any leadership on this issue? Would not this have been a very suitable matter for a ministerial broadcast?

Mr. Short: I repudiate entirely the premise on which that question is based. My right hon. Friend gives splendid leadership to the country.

CENTRAL POLICY REVIEW STAFF

Mr. Tim Renton: asked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint a professional expert on the rating system to the Central Policy Review Staff.

Mr. George Gardiner: asked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint to the Central Policy Review Staff an expert on the rating system.

Mr. Edward Short: I have been asked to reply.
No, Sir. My right hon. Friend does not intend to appoint to the Central Policy Review Staff members with responsibility for specific subjects.

Mr. Renton: Is the Lord President aware that the Layfield Committee is meeting only once a fortnight and that long before it reports many householders, on present indications, will be faced with rate demands of up to double what they are paying this year? Is this not a classic example of snail-like progress, or of Rome burning while the Government fiddle?

Mr. Short: No, Sir, I do not accept that at all. The Layfield Committee has a very heavy programme of meetings. It is receiving a great deal of evidence. It is considering one of the most complicated subjects in Britain—a subject which has defeated every Government so far, apart from the plan that we had on the back of an envelope at the last election from the Conservative Party. The committee will report towards the end of next year.

Mr. Gardiner: As ratepayers are likely to have to pay over the odds in order to finance the folly of those local councillors who followed the Lord President's own encouragement in breaking the law on fair rents, will not the Lord President be big enough to express some regret for the pledge that he gave at last year's Labour Party conference to remove all penalties, financial and otherwise, retrospectively?

Mr. Short: We had thought that the hon. Gentleman was trying to improve his image since the recess—he has actually moved his seat in the Chamber—but not so, apparently. I should like to point out two extracts from my speech which I have given to the House before. I said:
The NEC cannot possibly advise Labour councillors to act unlawfully.
I said at the end
Finally, I have got to say that the acceptance of this motion must not be taken by anybody to be an encouragement to any Labour councillors anywhere to act unlawfully.

Mr. Molloy: In this context, will my right hon. Friend address himself to the problem which I and many other hon. Members face when our constituents write to us wanting to know what action can be taken by them to recover money that they lost to an organisation called Court Line? At the time when Court Line was cheating them, many of them believed that this organisation was making a political financial contribution to the Conservative Party. They feel that the Conservative Party ought to have the courage to have a mass collection and at least to pay back my constituents the money that they lost to Court Line.

Mr. Short: My hon. Friend will be pleased to recollect that the Government are dealing with the question of the people who have lost money to that company.

Mr. Channon: As next week will see the announcement of the rate support grant for next year—this question is about rating—will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the Government come forward with exceptionally generous provision next week, so that the constituents of hon. Members on both sides of the House do not have to face a massive rise in rates next year, as they did this year?

Mr. Short: The rates this year were calculated when the previous Government were in office. But certainly, as the hon. Gentleman has said, the negotiations on the global amount of the rate support grant will be concluded in the coming week and my right hon. Friend will be making a statement on this subject.

NORTH SEA OIL

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Ministry of Defence and the Secretary of State for Energy in relation to oil developments in the North Sea.

Mr. Edward Short: I have been asked to reply.
Yes. Sir.

Mr. Dalyell: With the contraction of the defence budget, would it not be sensible to transfer a good deal of the expenditure oil oil-related naval diving and, indeed, on the much-needed search and recovery vessel in the North Sea, to the Department of Energy account?

Mr. Short: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that a great deal of co-operation is taking place now. Only last week an initiative was announced by the Offshore Supplies Office to make use of the Navy's diving expertise to help to promote a stronger United Kingdom diving industry. More generally, without speculating on the outcome of the defence review and its effects on particular establishments, any reduction in demands made on them by the defence programme could increase rather than diminish the effort in support of civil projects. So there is a very great deal going on, and I hope very much that it can be increased.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Will the Lord President ask his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to appoint one Minister to have charge of this very important aspect of the development of North Sea oil, so that at least one of the many uncertainties about defence may be removed?

Mr. Short: As the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, the Prime Minister did announce that the Lord Privy Seal had been asked to co-operate measures necessary for the protection of offshore and other maritime interests.

WEST CUMBRIA

John A. Cunningham: asked the Prime Minister if he will pay a visit to West Cumbria.

Mr. Edward Short: I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.

Dr. Cunningham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in spite of the fact that decisions on the regional employment premium, investment in the coal industry and the dispersal of Government jobs have been warmly welcomed in the Northern Region, there is nevertheless considerable concern about what is already an unacceptable level of unemployment? Is there not a clear need to review the whole of our regional development policies, in both their scope and their effectiveness? Ought not such a review also to be made so that it can coincide with the introduction of the National Enterprise Board, aimed at bringing further industrial assistance and further new jobs to the regions?

Mr. Short: I agree with my hon. Friend. We must keep this matter constantly under review. As he says, we have doubled the rate of the Regional Employment Premium. We have tightened the industrial development certificate control—I think on 1st September. We have recently announced three programmes for advance factories, including 16 in the Northern Region, and, of those, two will be in West Cumbria. I myself announced the decision about the Government's Chemist's Department in the exercise on dispersal. The powers that we shall be seeking from the House in the new Industry Bill—that will include the NEB—will further strengthen our ability to tackle employment problems in the regions.

Mr. Robert Carr: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Government's policies since March have caused the collapse of industry's investment programmes?

Mr. Short: I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman would pay tribute to what my right hon. Friend has done in the recent Budget.

SOCIAL SERVICES (MINISTERS' SPEECH)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister if the public speech made by the Secretary of State for Social Ser-

vices at Coventry on 6th November on social service expenditure represented official Government policy.

Mr. Edward Short: I have been asked to reply.
Yes, Sir.

Mr. Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us read that speech with considerable alarm? Does he not recognise that the National Health Service, to take just one example, is on the verge of collapse because of the shortage of capital investment and current expenditure, and that if there are to be priorities—I assume that the Government have their priorities—there ought to be a considerable slashing of the road programme, if that would enable a diversion of resources to such a valuable service as the health service?
Will my right hon. Friend read again the report of the Expenditure Sub-Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short), which investigated the cuts in public expenditure initiated by the previous Tory Government in the White Paper of December 1973, in which the Sub-Committee said that in no circumstances must social expenditure ever be cut again in this Draconian way?

Mr. Short: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained on 12th November that public expenditure as a whole in the next four years could not be allowed to grow at a greater rate than 2¾ per cent. a year, in real terms. The detailed decisions on the practicable rate of growth for particular services have not yet been taken.

Mr. Nigel Lawson: Will the Leader of the House take note that if there are to be cuts in the social services it will be a question of priorities, and that the most obvious candidate for such cuts is the provision of taxpayers' money to the families of those who choose to go on strike?

Mr. Short: As I said, public expenditure as a whole will grow at a rate of 2¾ per cent. in real terms, but the apportionment of that money to various services has not yet been decided.

MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Mr. Wyn Roberts: asked the Prime Minister whether he will dismiss the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Mr. Edward Short: I have been asked to reply.
I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave on 11th November to the hon. Lady the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing).—[Vol. 881, c. 34.]

Mr. Roberts: Does the Lord President agree that whatever the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announces this afternoon will be too little and too late for the Welsh farmers and all other livestock farmers? Will he do something about it, because these people are in a very desperate plight?

Mr. Short: I understand the plight of the Welsh farmers, certainly, but this afternoon my right hon. Friend will be giving a report on his considerable achievements in Brussels this week. He will be reporting on three issues—New Zealand dairy produce, the arrangements for beef, and the arrangements for the purchase of sugar.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is now half-past three. The Minister of Agriculture is to make a statement later.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Peyton: May I ask the Leader of the House if he will kindly state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 25TH NOVEMBER—Supply [2nd Allotted Day]: There will be a debate on Agriculture.

Motion on EEC documents Nos. R/834/73 on aerosols, COM(69)71 on fruit juices, and R/2222/72 and R/2579/73 on cosmetic products.

TUESDAY, 26TH NOVEMBER—Remaining stages of the Social Security Amendment Bill.

Motions on the Social Security Regulations relating to contributions and benefits.

WEDNESDAY, 27TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Oil Taxation Bill.

Motion on the Juries (Northern Ireland) Order.

THURSDAY, 28TH NOVEMBER—Debate on the Review of the Price Code, Command No. 5779.

Motions on EEC documents No. R/1255/74 on carriage of goods by road, and on Nos. COM(72)202 and R/2628/73 on prepacked products.

Motions on the Post Office Compensation for Limitation of Prices Order and on the (Borrowing Powers) Order.

FRIDAY, 29TH NOVEMBER—Private Members' motions.

MONDAY, 2ND DECEMBER—Supply [3rd Allotted Day]: Subject for debate to be announced later.

Mr. Peyton: I thank the Leader of the House for his very helpful response to the request by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition last week for a day's debate on the Price Code consultative document.
Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the debate which took place on Wednesday night which revealed that the Food Subsidies (Tea) Order had lapsed and that for four whole days public money had been paid out in the subsidy without any authority? Do the Government intend to accept the very sensible suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) and introduce an idemnity Bill to remedy this dreadful lapse and thus restore to the Government some threads of respectability?
I am the last person who would wish to embarrass the Leader of the House but may I ask him whether we can at some time expect something on defence?

Mr. Short: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his first remarks, anyhow. On the second point about the tea subsidy, I am sorry that this mistake


occurred. I apologise to the House for it but I am advised that there is no need for an indemnity Bill. On the defence review, there will he a detailed statement to the House in the very near future.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: When does my right hon. Friend intend to proceed with the remaining stages of the Channel Tunnel Bill? Will he bear in mind the motion on the Order Paper in my name opposing the project? It now has nearly 100 signatures and is rapidly gaining more daily.

[That this House believes that the Channel Tunnel project should not be continued.]

Mr. Short: The Channel Tunnel Bill will be put down on the Order Paper in the very near future and my right bon. Friend will be making a statement on it at about the same time.

Mr. Hannam: Since next week's legislation does not include proposals for the nationalisation of shipbuilding or the aircraft industries, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm the report in the Sun newspaper that because of the time which will be necessary for the proposed legislation on the referendum Bill the Government have decided to drop these nationalisation proposals?

Mr. Short: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking that question because it gives me the opportunity to deny the report in the newspaper today. The Bill to take over these industries was announced in the Queen's Speech. It will be introduced and, we hope, receive the Royal Assent in the present Session.

Mr. Arthur Latham: Will my right hon. Friend say what is happening about the Compton Review report on the administration and services of the House of Commons, and will he bear in mind that, apart from the concern felt by some of us who have taken a particular interest in the matter, there is now considerable disquiet among many of the staff of the House who see many of the matters arising out of the report affecting their future and want to know what initiative will be taken?

Mr. Short: This is a matter for you. Mr. Speaker. When the report is published you said you hoped to set up a

small informal committee—not a Select Committee—to look into it, and I understand that you have already taken some steps to that end and that the committee will be set up in the very near future.

Mr. Hooson: Last week the right hon. Gentleman told the House that it was impossible to have a debate on the O'Brien Report on the export of animals because international consultations were taking place. Have these been completed, and when can a debate on this very important matter be held?

Mr. Short: The consultations are now complete, and I am happy to tell the House that we are now in a position, as soon as we can find parliamentary time, to have a debate. I do not think this will be possible before Christmas—[HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."]—but I will arrange a debate at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Palmer: Will my right hon. Friend consider giving time for a wide-ranging debate on energy policy both in the domestic sense and in the wider European context?

Mr. Short: I shall certainly bear that in mind.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when he expects to set up the Procedure Committee? The motion has appeared on the Order Paper for about the last three days.

Mr. Short: I am sorry that it has not been set up this week. The motion has been down each day but someone has objected to it. If hon. Members go on objecting we must debate it next week.

Mr. Faulds: Will my right hon. Friend carefully consider the need for this House to debate the world food crisis? Does he understand that it is unacceptable that we should wait, as he claimed we should last week—with the impending deaths of hundreds of thousands of people—to debate this matter until after the self-indulgence and celebration of Christmas?

Mr. Short: Unfortunately, it would not prevent the deaths of large numbers of people to debate the matter before Christmas. Our debate was delayed. The problem is—

Mr. Faulds: It might help the Government's policies.

Mr. Short: The trouble is that we are very short of parliamentary time. My hon. Friend has raised a very important subject and I will bear it in mind. We shall debate the matter as soon as we can.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Crawford Committee's report on broadcasting has been published today and that it contains the recommendation that the fourth channel be used in Wales as a national channel on which the Welsh language would take priority? In view of the importance of this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman seek an early opportunity to debate it either in the Welsh Grand Committee or on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Short: The hon. Member is quite right. Lord Crawford's report has been published today. I believe that it would be advisable to allow time for everyone to read it because it is a long report. Perhaps when we have absorbed it we can consider a debate.

Mr. Spriggs: When can the House expect to receive the report on Members' interests? When the report is available will my right hon. Friend follow it up by submitting the case for Members to the Boyle Committee?

Mr. Short: I gave an undertaking about the second part of the Question. I think that when someone raised it last in the House I said that the appropriate time to refer the case would be in January next year. On the first part of the question, I do not know but I have heard that the Committee is likely to report in the very near future.

Sir J. Eden: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken note of Motion No. 48 drawing attention to the grave implications which could follow the visit to the United Nations of the Arab terrorist leader, Arafat? In the circumstances, will the right hon. Gentleman find an early opportunity for a debate on the whole of the Middle East situation?
[That this House is gravely concerned at the possible repercussions that could follow the appearance before the United Nations General Assembly of the terrorist Palestine Liberation Organisation leader,

Yasser Arafat, and calls upon Her Majesty's Government resolutely to declare its support for the continued integrity of the independent State of Israel.]

Mr. Short: On many occasions we have stated our firm support for the continued existence of Israel within secure and recognised boundaries, and we have called for that in Security Council Resolution 242 of 1967. That remains the Government's firm policy.

Mr. Newens: My right hon. Friend said that he expected a statement on the defence review in the near future. Does he expect that there will be an opportunity to debate this matter before the House rises for the Christmas Recess, and is it his intention to allow the House to debate foreign affairs before we rise?

Mr. Short: On the first part, I cannot promise a debate specifically on the defence review, but one of our normal defence days arises before Christmas, so that there will be a day's debate on defence, and it will take place after the statement. I cannot give an undertaking that there will be a foreign affairs debate before Christmas.

Mr. Montgomery: Does the Leader of the House remember what he said on business questions last Thursday about today's debate on the compulsory wearing of seat belts? If a large number of hon. Members still wish to speak at 10 o'clock may we have an assurance that the debate will be adjourned and that further time will be given on another day?

Mr. Short: I undertook that we would watch the debate to see how it went. If it is obvious that more time is required I would be prepared to move the adjournment of the debate today.

Mr. Lee: When may we expect to have a Second Reading of the Common Market referendum enabling Bill? Will my right hon., Friend say whether there will be time for a debate on the progress of the renegotiations?

Mr. Short: The Government have not yet decided to have a referendum. If we decide to do so, that will require legislation.

Mr. Jopling: In view of the very great danger of many thousands of cattle dying


of starvation during the winter months through lack of fodder, will the Leader of the House appreciate that to wait until after Christmas for a debate on the O'Brien Report is totally inadequate?

Mr. Short: I am sorry. I have been pressed about the matter, and I have taken a great deal of trouble to expedite it. We shall debate it as soon as possible.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have two important statements to come. We must proceed.

NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS (INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE)

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Foot): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish, in response to the request from the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) yesterday, to make a statement about the current dispute between the Newspaper Society and the National Union of Journalists.
The dispute has arisen in the course of negotiations for a new annual agreement on the pay and conditions of some 8,000 journalists employed on provincial newspapers. This would be for implementation on 1st January when the present agreement ends. The union's claim has a number of components, but central to it is a claim for a new single basic minimum rate for all journalists working in provincial and suburban offices. I understand that the union has calculated that to restore the real value of wage rates and to establish a new single rate increases of between £13·31 and £7·69 per week would be justified. In response to this particular claim, the society offered increases of £5·40 per week. This was not acceptable to the union.
From 5th November the union imposed sanctions, the operation of which led to the dismissal of 66 journalists employed by the Kentish Times and one by the Slough Evening Mail. Subsequently the union instructed its members employed by London suburban newspapers to strike from 18th November until these journalists were reinstated.
I very much hope that a basis can be found for a resumption of negotiations

and for a settlemenet and that the dispute can now be quickly resolved. The Conciliation and Arbitration Service is closely in touch with both parties and, I understand, is very ready to be of assistance. If the parties remain unable to reach agreement, I would urge them both to consider urgently seeking that assistance.

Mr. Prior: The House will be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his statement in response to questions asked yesterday and for confirming that the dispute is basically about wages, although, as many hon. Members on both sides of the House know, there are sinister undertones as well. Will he accept that there is concern on both sides of the House that the type of industrial action chosen by the NUJ, which results in non-NUJ material being blacked, is clearly a threat to the freedom of the Press and to editorial rights, and that it denies to the public vital information that they should have? Therefore, will the right hon. Gentleman do all in his power, with his great experience in these matters, not only to help bring the dispute to an end but to state clearly that censorship of the Press can never form part of an industrial dispute of this nature?

Mr. Foot: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members will appreciate from my statement why I wished to keep that aspect separate from the other question raised yesterday. I wished to keep it separate for the simple reason that if the two matters became tangled up it might be much more difficult to secure an ending of the dispute.
When the right hon. Gentleman asks me to comment on actions taken by the trade union in this respect, I might be tempted to comment on actions taken by the employers. If I embarked upon that kind of comment now, I very much doubt whether it would assist in securing a settlement of the dispute. That is the urgent necessity.
I am not denying the importance of the matter, but the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has raised it begs the question. Some employers and others—not all the employers by any means—claim that the action of the union raises questions of censorship, while the union insists that it is concerned solely with


pursuing its claim. That is why I say that it would be wrong for me to try to pronounce on these matters now. But—and this applies in my attempt to get both the employers and the unions to come to an early settlement—I agree that disputes which lead to frequent and persistent stoppages in the newspaper industry have a special significance, in that they touch upon the free flow of opinion. If such disputes were to persist in the way that some people forecast, they could drain away the life blood of democracy in this country. That is one of the reasons why I want to see the dispute settled as quickly as possible, so that all the issues can be sensibly discussed when we come to the Second Reading of our Bill to amend the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act and its Committee stage.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the dispute between 240 journailsts and the Birmingham Post and Mail, for example, could be settled by continued negotiations and an improved national pay offer? Will he also confirm that he does not agree with the claim of the Newspaper Society that the carrying out of a national trade union instruction in support of a wage claim by responsible newsmen represents an erosion of editorial prerogative?

Mr. Foot: As I have already said, I do not accept the statement that the issue of censorship is involved in the actions that the union has taken. I know that other people take a different view. That is why I say it is a proper matter for us to discuss at the most appropriate time in the House.
As for my hon. Friend's first question, I am not pronouncing on what should be the terms of the settlement, but I fully agree that it is an industrial dispute, and I believe that I am giving the best advice to the House and the parties concerned as how it can be settled.

Mr. Churchill: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his determination to grant the militants of the NUJ the right to the closed shop that they are demanding will place the freedom of the Press at the mercy and caprice of a small and highly politically motivated monopoly?

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman has grossly and gratuitously misrepresented the intention of the Government's legislation. The more he spreads that kind of alarm throughout the country, the more difficult it may be to deal with future disputes as well as the present dispute. I hope that even the hon. Gentleman will be eager to have the dispute speedily settled, in the interests of the freedom of the Press.

Mr. Flannery: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us, especially on the Labour benches, want to see a reasonable settlement and do not want to use the dispute, as many Opposition Members do, as a vehicle for slandering the National Union of Journalists? Is my right hon. Friend also aware that we view with alarm the sacking of journalists instead of looking into the problem with a view to settling it amicably, which the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) obviously does not want to do?

Mr. Foot: I hope that I have made it clear that I want a settlement. Some other people seem to want a row.

Mr. Grimond: I should like to ask the Secretary of State two purely factual questions. First, if the union claim were granted, what would be the new single rate? Secondly, and perhaps more important, may we have an authoritative description of what the sanctions were? It is difficult for the House to make up its mind whether they were reasonable without knowing precisely what they were.

Mr. Foot: I think I gave the figures for which the right hon. Gentleman asks in my original reply. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If I did not, I am sorry. I do not know what the single new rate would be, but I know the calculations. [Interruption.] I thought that I had answered the right hon. Gentleman.
What I am saying is that the important aspect of the matter raised by the right hon. Gentleman in the first part of his question is not the claim but the settlement. The journalists' figures varied between £7·69 and £13·31, and the Newspaper Society offered £5·40. What I am saying is that no doubt a settlement could be reached on some figure in between those limits. I am not making any suggestion as to what that should be. What is more, it would be


foolish of me to suggest that it should be because that is precisely the kind of matter on which I hope discussions are taking place already. I do not wish to go into that any further.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the form of the sanctions authorised and being applied by the union. These are a refusal to handle copy prepared or submitted by anyone other than a member of the union, a restriction on the number of hours worked to 40 a week, and a requirement that sub-editors should check the facts in copy before them. The claim of the NUJ is that in applying such sanctions it is applying the kind of sanctions that might be applied by other workers in other industries.
I know that Conservative Members may make a different claim about it. That is one of the issues in dispute between the different people approaching the matter. But that is what the union is doing, and it is on that basis that it says it is pursuing an industrial claim and not engaging in censorship.

Mr. Grimond: The Secretary of State gave some figures but not the total. Can he state what the total weekly rate would be if the increases were granted?

Mr. Foot: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House if I cannot give the figure in different terms from those that I have stated, but I believe that that does not affect the issue that I have put to the House. What I am suggesting is that the figure on which a settlement should be made is not a matter for debate in this House. Our aim should be to try to secure a settlement as speedily as possible.

Mr. Madden: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for contributing to the education of the Opposition in this dispute.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must ask a question.

Mr. Madden: My comment applies particularly to the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior).
Does my right hon. Friend agree that with 900 NUJ members on 18 newspapers on strike this dispute is now reaching serious proportions?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that as the society has not seen fit to reopen genuine negotiations one can conclude that it does not seem to regard the dispute as serious? Can he confirm that it is known unofficially that the Newspaper Society is ready to improve its offer, and that if that were made known industrial sanctions would be withdrawn, negotiations could be reopened and the dispute could be settled?

Mr. Foot: Perhaps I may now tell the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) that I am refortified in this matter and that the figure for which he was searching, and for which I was searching even more avidly, is £51.
My reply to my hon. Friend is that I have regarded the dispute as serious right from the start, for the reasons that I gave at the beginning. I want to see this dispute settled as speedily as possible, and I believe that there are chances of its being settled. I think that I must be careful. Others can be as irresponsible as they wish but I have to try to ensure that we get a settlement, and I should like a little assistance from those others in getting it.

Mr. Percival: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, whatever else may be in doubt, one thing is plain, namely, that the action impinges heavily on the editorial freedom of some papers but scarcely, if at all, on others? How can that be squared with the suggestion that this is industrial action taken only in support of a pay claim that is against all of them? Is it not obvious that the dispute is designed, at least in part, to further the avowed intention—whether it it good or bad is a matter of opinion—of the leaders of the NUJ to secure a single union closed shop up to and including editors, and does not the right hon. Gentleman deplore impingement upon editorial freedom for any of those purposes?

Mr. Foot: The hon. and learned Gentleman is now tempting me to follow the course which I have said over the past two days it would be unwise to adopt. In attempting to secure a settlement we must avoid tangling the two issues—the issue of the alleged attempt to establish a closed shop and the issue of the industrial dispute. I repeat and emphasise my belief that what I am


saying is correct. If these two issues become tangled it will be much more difficult to untangle the whole situation.
As far as the hon. and learned Gentleman's views and those of others on the question of a closed shop are concerned, I believe that there has been a lot of misrepresentation of what the Government seek to do in the matter and I shall be happy to debate the whole question on the Floor of the House at the first available opportunity.

Mr. Peyton: If there has been any tangling up, it has been done not by the House of Commons but by the Government, and one way of untangling it is for the Government to drop their amendment to the Industrial Relations Act. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no one in the Opposition wants a row? Everybody wants a settlement, but they want a settlement of an extraordinary important matter that has regard to the public interest; namely, the freedom of the Press.

Mr. Foot: I gather that the right hon. Gentleman now agrees that these two issues should be kept separate, and that is an advance. He suggests that we should drop the proposed clause dealing with this matter. I must tell him that the clause deals not only with newspapers but with industrial relations generally. Our commitment, which we intend to fulfil, is the complete repeal of all the offensive parts of the 1971 Industrial Relations Act. As long as the offensive remnants of that Act, which was introduced by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, remain on the statute book there is grave danger to industrial relations in this country, including the newspaper industry itself. The newspaper proprietors told me a few months ago that they had lost about £10 million as a result of the Industrial Relations Act. We are trying to help the newspapers, even if they do not know how to help themselves.

AGRICULTURE (EEC MINISTERS' MEETING)

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): The Council of Ministers (Agriculture) met in Brussels on 18th and 19th November. The main decisions were to increase the New Zea-

land butter and cheese prices under Protocol 18, to provide for a guaranteed return to our beef producers, and to settle the duration and price elements in the mandate for sugar negotiations under Protocol 22.
The Council decided on an increase of 18 per cent. in the cif prices for New Zealand butter and cheese imported under Protocol 18, with effect from 1st January 1975. I consulted Mr. Walding, New Zealand's Minister of Trade, throughout the negotiations. He has warmly welcomed the outcome and has been generous in his recognition of the help given by this country. The increase will not affect retail prices.
On beef, the Council accepted the need to provide an assurance of firm returns to beef producers in the United Kingdom. As from the beginning of this week we shall provide from our own funds supplementary premium payments as necessary to provide an assured return of £18 per cwt. liveweight, for the week beginning 18th November, increasing week by week to a level of £21·81 at the end of January. I am arranging for a Supplementary Estimate to be submitted, but in the meantime I will have recourse to the Contingencies Fund.
Certain limits are set to the maximum subsidies payable under this scheme, but with the degree of flexibility that will be available I am satisfied that we shall be able to ensure that producers actually receive on average the full target prices guaranteed.
Similar supplementary premiums will be paid on cattle and beef imported from the Irish Republic. There will be equivalent export levies on beef exports to other member States.
The beef market will also be supported by a limited form of support buying at relatively low price levels, beginning at £14·18 per cwt. at the end of November, and rising gradually to £18·54 at the end of January. The basic beef premium will not be paid on any beef sold into intervention. We shall not, therefore, be applying intervention either at the full level or as a permanent and continuous method of support, but rather as a way of protecting the market, and incidentally the Exchequer, against the sort of price falls seen in recent weeks.


The guarantee to producers derives essentially, however, from the operation of the variable premium payments to them.
On this basis there is no question of a beef mountain being accumulated in the United Kingdom. Any beef taken into intervention will be canned as cuts or kept in frozen carcase form, with the intention of phasing it back later to our own market through normal commercial outlets.
This combination of measures gives beef producers the firm guarantee of returns for which they have asked, coupled with modest support buying which should have no significant effect on retail prices.
The arrangements will last until 31st January. Those operating from February will be decided in the context of next year's CAP prices. I intend to ensure that they give equivalent support to our beef industry.
On Protocol 22, sugar, the two outstanding questions were duration and price. On duration, the Council agreed that the principle of the guarantee to buy sugar from the developing countries will be valid for an indefinite period. The procedures for implementing it will be open to review if necessary and will in any event be reviewed before the end of the seventh year of the agreement. No amendments, other than quota adjustments in the event of shortfalls, will be made with less than five years' notice. These provisions are very satisfactory and give firm long-term assurances to the developing Commonwealth.
On price, the Council drew a distinction between the price guaranteed on a long-term basis and the price actually paid while world prices remain high. The guaranteed price will be negotiated within the prices applicable in the Community. But the Council recognised that in the exceptional circumstances of high world prices the price actually paid may exceed the guaranteed basic price by amounts to be negotiated between the sellers and the buyers. It also agreed that, if necessary, State guarantees may be given to the buyers in accordance with the opinion of the Commission. This should make it possible for prices to be paid which will bring the sugar to this country.
The combination of these measures, together with the statement of the Council

secured last week by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, is sufficient to give our refineries the assurances they are seeking about supplies of cane raws to our factories. Clearly in 1975, and in 1976 if still necessary, the supplementary payments would automatically bring such sugar to the paying countries. There is thus no need to insist on quotas at this stage. Should the situation change later, we have the Council Declaration to the effect that the bulk of the cane raws will come here in accordance with the traditional flows of trade.
I made my agreement to these arrangements for beef and sugar ad referendum, so as to enable my colleagues to consider them thoroughly. This has been done and the Government have decided to accept the agreement. If the Dutch Government, which also agreed ad referendum, take the same course, the agreement reached will become definitive on Friday. I hope that this will be done, for I regard the agreements on sugar and beef as satisfactory both for the developing Commonwealth and for this country.

Mr. Pym: If the right hon. Gentleman regards the agreement on sugar and beef as satisfactory, the Opposition regard it as too little and much too late. The right hon. Gentleman's return to intervention proves the failure of his policy since March. He has said that the Council accepted the need to provide an assurance of firm returns to beet producers. It always has accepted that. It was the right hon. Gentleman who did not.
I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has restored at least a partial guarantee for the beef market. Does he now admit that the guarantees should never have been taken away? Under the previous Conservative Government there was the guarantee of intervention which the Labour Government removed. Does he begin to realise the appalling damage and hardship, and in some cases ruin, that has been inflicted upon many farming families and livestock enterprises as a result of his neglect throughout the summer and autumn? Should he not be overcome with a feeling of shame? Will he make his new scheme retrospective to the sellers of fat stock not just to


Monday—morally it should be retrospective to 26th June—but to August?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this scheme does nothing for the sellers of fat stock in the hill and upland areas who have already sold their stock? What will he do about them?
What is the amount of the subsidy to be paid by the British taxpayer to Ireland? What is the right hon. Gentleman's estimate of that? What does he estimate the effect will be on Irish imports? What has the right hon. Gentleman to say to the cattle men of Wales?
The last sentence of the right hon. Gentleman's statement on sugar reads:
This should make it possible for prices to be paid which will bring the sugar to this country.
What happens if it does not? What confidence can he give to the consumer that supplies of sugar will be adequate in 1975? What is the likely price of a 2 lb, bag of sugar in 1975?

Mr. Peart: I am amazed that the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) should wish to argue about guarantees. He knows full well that the major guarantees that safeguarded the interests of our producers for a long time were removed by the previous Conservative Government. There is no question of that. He knows full well that permanent intervention in the Community has not worked. That has been said time and time again. I believe that this agreement, as Sir Henry Plumb has said, is a major break through. The deal will bring back virtually a guaranteed support system which, I believe, will be welcomed by the farming community. It has been praised by the President of the National Farmers' Union and also by leaders of the unions in Scotland. I am surprised that the right hon. Member should always be such a carping critic.

Mr. Jopling: Will the right hon. Gentleman come to Cumberland?

Mr. Peart: I will go to Cumberland with the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) at any time. I hope that he will make his speech standing up and not continue shouting and bawling from below.
From the point of view of the livestock farmer I believe that this is a good deal.

I had to work within the dimension of the European Community.

Mr. Skinner: Why?

Mr. Peart: I shall come to that. The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire knows full well that we agreed to have discussions on the beef régime in February. It is true that hon. Members on both sides of the House pressed me to try to get the Community to agree to some advance negotiations. I did that and I have secured this deal. It was not easy to get a new guarantee system to operate here.
I remind my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that the Government have given a pledge to renegotiate, and that after we secure terms we shall have to judge whether they are favourable. The Government have not accepted an "empty chair" policy. I believe that it is right and proper to seek the best terms for Britain and the best terms which I believe will satisfy the nation.

Mr. Pym: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer the questions I put to him rather than a question put by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) from a sedentary position?

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that that is not a point of order.

Mr. Peart: rose—

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is to be a debate on agriculture on Monday. If the House is not a little quieter, I shall stop all questions on this subject forthwith.

Mr. Peart: I shall be only too pleased to answer the questions put by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire. He asked me for my estimate of the subsidy in relation to Ireland. It could be about £1 million. I do not know yet. But the Irish trade is linked completely with ours. Under the previous arrangements, conducted by both Conservative and Labour Governments, these subsidies have always been paid generally.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we on this side of the House warmly welcome the constructive


settlement which he has just achieved, which will give a reasonably assured price to beef farmers over the interim period? Will he further take account of the problems of the stores producers, who are in an extremely difficult position owing to a severe shortage of fodder? What action does he propose to take to deal with their problems?

Mr. Peart: My right hon. Friend is quite right in saying that the fodder question is important, but it was not included in the package deal in Brussels. However, I have, of course, been in touch with the leaders of the farmers' unions and we are holding meetings to consider the situation. We have been trying to estimate where supplies can be obtained from and to where they should go. I assure my right hon. Friend that this matter is being urgently considered. I believe that the guarantee itself, which has been welcomed by the farmers' leaders, will have a tremendous psychological effect.

Mr. Hooson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in the desperate state of the livestock section of agriculture, he deserves a qualified and cautious welcome for the results of his negotiations in Brussels? If the Council of Ministers is now prepared to accept that British farmers need a firm assurance of price on their animals, why would it not have accepted that case six months ago? Or did not the right hon. Gentleman put the proposition to the Council then? Why did the right hon. Gentleman agree that the British taxpayer should pay on Irish imported cattle without imposing a 60-day limit?
Finally, when the right hon. Gentleman reached agreement with the Council of Ministers, did he do so on the principle that from 1st February he would accept an intervention price, when all the evidence from Ireland is that the intervention price has broken down completely there and that that is why Irish animals have been imported here?

Mr. Peart: For our discussions in February, I have reserved my position completely in relation to intervention. Other countries have reserved their positions for other reasons, France included. We shall have to await the negotiations. I am glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman has given qualified welcome to

my statement. That is certainly a more constructive attitude than the carping criticism made by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire. I do not think that it would be helpful for me to comment further on the question of Irish cattle.

Mr. Torney: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing back a measure of guaranteed prices into the beef market and on the fact that he has been able to achieve it despite the straitjacket placed around him by the headlong rush of the Conservative Government into the Common Market.
Can my right hon. Friend give a more definite assurance on the question of intervention? From his statement, it appears that this is only a token intervention. Does this mean that the Common Market now has its foot in the door towards the abolition, as it were, of our opposition to intervention? Does it mean that the Government are to adopt intervention? Many of us on this side of the House believe that that would be a very wrong policy.

Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend is right to put that question. The Government's belief, and policy, is that a guarantee system for a floor to the market—as I have brought about in this case through variable premiums—is a better system than the system of permanent intervention.
In relation to the major negotiations in February, which will lead to a settlement because of the beef year beginning on 1st March, I have entirely reserved my position. I give my hon. Friend that assurance. What I have announced today is a very small amount of intervention. I hope that my hon. Friend understands that with one other crop—potatoes—we have a support system but we also enable potatoes to be taken off the market through the form of intervention. That has been done.

Mr. Charles Morrison: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that in no circumstances will the return to farmers fall below £l 8 a hundredweight? If intervention is not to be at a full or permanent level, why does the right hon. Gentleman think that what he has said today will restore confidence in beef production?

Mr. Peart: Because I believe the word of those involved. I consulted the farmers' unions. I discussed frankly with them what they wanted and my own objectives. That is why I believe that the unions, having welcomed the deal, will get acceptance for it from the rank and file. I believe that this agreement represents a breakthrough in the sense that we have achieved, for the first time, after hard negotiations, something approaching the sort of floor to the market which came through our old guarantee system, not with the intervention system.

Mr. Buchan: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on getting a guaranteed price and a deficiency payments system. He will not be surprised to hear me say so. As I have some reason for saying, it is about time. I congratulate him also on treating questions from the Tory Party as irrelevant, because it was the conduct of that party when in Government which put us into the present position.
Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the victory we have achieved is rather analogous to the position of a man who rescues himself from a noose into which it was rather unnecessary for him to place himself in the first place? Was acceptance of intervention the price we had to pay for this agreement? Would it not have been possible from last March onwards to achieve this position without paying a price which many of us feel pre-empts our decision next year with regard to the future of the Common Market?

Mr. Peart: As my hon. Friend knows, I have always held the view that we should have a floor to the market. I have put that view on a number of occasions in Brussels and Luxemburg. We could not have achieved this situation last March. It has taken a long time to convince other people that our approach is a good one. My hon. Friend knows full well that one country can block even a deal like this.
Without revealing what went on in the private, restricted sessions of the Council of Ministers, I can tell my hon. Friend that it was not easy to get agreement. At one stage, I thought that our concept of variable premiums, which means a

guaranteed price system, would not be accepted. In the end, however, after long and hard negotiations right through the night, we achieved our objective.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: My questions relate to sugar. First, however, on behalf of the workers and representatives of management who are to see him tomorrow at his suggestion, I thank my right hon. Friend for his willingness to discuss the complexities of the situation.
I have three questions. First, is it true that the normally lower cane price will be brought up to the beet sugar price as a consequence of the agreement? Secondly, can my right hon. Friend confirm that the beet price and. therefore, the cane price will be reviewed upwards on 1st December? Thirdly, will my right hon. Friend explain his reference to State assistance, particularly for 1975 and 1976?

Mr. Peart: I should like to thank my hon. Friend. I am glad that he mentioned my meeting with the refiners, and particularly the trade unions. I was glad that today Mr. Wheatley, the convener of the shop stewards at Tate and Lyle, said:
The onus is on the Government to settle for a fair price. The new deal appears to satisfy the basic demands for continued supplies of cane sugar for our refineries.
As for the price, this is a difficult question, but the basic price will certainly be around the figure which has been mentioned in relation to the EEC target price. My hon. Friend may remember that I negotiated £140 per ton for Guyana. My guess would be that it will be in that region. But this is a matter for the Commission when it negotiates. Obviously, I cannot say what final price will be accepted, but I have had this mechanism put in through a Council Declaration that if world prices went so high over a period, it would be possible to get the sugar through special payments, for which we shall be responsible, and aids could be given to those organisations which buy the sugar for us.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am very sorry, but this debate must be continued on Monday.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR MONDAY 9TH DECEMBER

Members successful in the Ballot were:

Mr. Roger Sims
Mr. John Stanley
Mrs. Jill Knight.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (COMPTON REPORT)

Mr. George Cunningham: On a point of order. I know how short of time we are today, Mr. Speaker, and I will not take longer than I must. However, you will have noticed that the Leader of the House, in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham) about the follow-up to the Compton Report, mentioned that the appointment of the committee on this matter was a matter more for you than for him. He mentioned that it was in your mind to have a small informal committee to consider what follow-up should take place. I recall that it was always your announcement that there should be a small committee, but the informality is new to me. I presume it to mean a committee not set up, like any normal Select Committee, by a motion of the House.
There is not time today to go into the substance of this matter, but I wonder whether you would allow me next week to ask you a Private Notice Question

for answer in the House on this matter. Meanwhile, could we be assured that no steps will be taken to set up such a committee until hon. Members have had a chance to express themselves about it?

Mr. Speaker: I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said and perhaps communicate with him privately. I would certainly not set up a committee and allow it to come into operation until I had informed the House; that I promise. At the moment, I am in the course of discussions about the best way to proceed and I will have regard to the precedents. But I had better not say any more today. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to discuss this matter with me, I shall be glad to see him.

BILL PRESENTED

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Secretary Foot, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Edward Short, Mrs. Secretary Castle, Mr. Secretary Benn, Mr. Secretary Ross, Mr. Secretary John Morris, Mr. Edmund Dell and Mr. Albert Booth, presented a Bill to repeal (in whole or in part), replace or amend sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 29 and 30 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 and paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 to that Act: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 14.]

Orders of the Day — SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.34 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mrs. Barbara Castle): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
May I first apologise to the House? I shall not be able to attend as much of the debate as I should like and might even have to miss the winding-up speeches, but it is unavoidable. I hope that the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) will understand.
The Bill embodies the increases in national insurance benefits and family allowances which I announced last week and also two entirely new disablement benefits. This is the second largest up-rating since Beveridge and both these up-ratings have been carried through by a Labour Government. Once again, we have lost no time in fulfilling, and more than fulfilling, our pledge to the pensioners and the others concerned.
Our major aim must be, and remains, to combat inflation with all the means in our power, but in the meantime, in this period of exceptionally high inflation, we are determined that pensioners and other national insurance beneficiaries shall not fall behind. We shall therefore carry out upratings as frequently as is necessary. That is why, on coming into office in February, we rushed through in the record time of 16 weeks a record increase of 29 per cent. only 10 months after the previous Tory uprating. Indeed, so big was that increase in pensions and benefits which we introduced in July that despite the rise in prices since we announced it, last month—when the latest price figures were available—it still represented a gain in real terms of about 10 per cent. on the levels introduced by the Conservative uprating in October 1973.
Now, we are again preparing another substantial increase, of about 15½ per cent., to come into operation on 7th April next year—only 8½ months after the July increase. Once again, we are putting through the increase in the shortest practicable time.
During the election campaign. the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East made a big point of declaring that if the Conservatives were returned to power the next uprating could and would have been put through in January of next year—an operational period of about 12 weeks. I fear that some of my hon. Friends may have fallen for this. We could just about uprate national insurance pensions during that 12 weeks, because the work in relation to pensions and long-term benefits is done centrally by our computer at Newcastle. But supplementary benefit increases take much longer, because every recipient has to be clerically and individually reassessed. The minimum time needed to complete a supplementary benefit uprating is 20 weeks, which is exactly the time that we have allowed ourselves in this uprating.
Indeed, the House may remember that when, in my eagerness to rush through last July's uprating, I did so in 16 weeks, we ran into enormous administrative and staffing difficulties and some payments were delayed. I gave an assurance to my staff that the attempt would not be repeated to put through an uprating in less time than that in which it was physically possible for them to complete it, with reasonable working hours.
An uprating by the end of January, an uprating in 12 weeks, would be completely unmanageable unless—no doubt this point will be clarified today—the Conservative Party had intended not to uprate supplementary benefits at the same time but merely the basic pensions and long-term benefits. That is the only uprating that they could have carried through by the end of January, and in his heart of hearts the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East knows that I am speaking the simple and sober truth.
However, such an uprating would leave out the poorest section of the community. It is our strongly held view that in this inflationary situation when so many people are so desperately hard pressed, it would be unforgiveable to limit the up-rating to the basic pension and benefits and not to extend it to the poorest in the land, those on supplementary benefits.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It was our declared intention to apply the uprating at six-monthly intervals to all


long-term benefits. We sought to make no distinction of the kind which the right hon. Lady is identifying. She misunderstands the mechanics of it. We say that a decision to introduce upratings every six months should enable the procedures to be gone through. It is not a question of the gap between a decision to uprate and its implementation. I follow the difficulty about that. With a pattern of regular six-monthly upratings, it should be possible to do what is done in other countries without any difficulty.

Mrs. Castle: I notice with interest that the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that it was his party's intention to uprate all long-term benefits. That is not the distinction I am drawing. The distinction is between national insurance benefits and supplementary benefits. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that it is the Conservative Party's policy to introduce six-monthly, parallel and equal increases in pensions and supplementary benefits? If so, he was misleading the country during the General Election campaign when he said, "If we are returned to pick up the machinery of government in November, we shall uprate all those benefits in January". What I am saying is that that could not be done except by excluding people on supplementary benefit.

Sir G. Howe: The right hon. Lady misquotes what we said. We said that we intended to introduce six-monthly benefit increases as quickly as possible, by January or February. That was our declared intention. Clearly we had to work within the limits of what we inherited, but our commitment was beyond doubt.

Mrs. Castle: The right hon. and learned Gentleman hedged a little when I pointed out that it could not be done for supplementary beneficiaries. It could not be done in February either. Taking into account the detailed clerical work involved, the minimum period needed to uprate supplementary benefits is 20 weeks. There is real trouble, as I discovered, if one tries to do it in a shorter time.
As the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, his party has maintained its monthly intervals. This proposition was first mooted in the Conservative Party's manifesto in February 1974. Plainly it

was made in response to our pledge to increase pensions to £10 for a single person and £16 for a married couple. It was the Conservative Party's alternative.
The interesting point is that when the Conservative Party made this pledge it had already had 3½ years in power during which it could have prepared, as one has to prepare, the manpower budget for such a switch in policy. Instead, it tried to cut Civil Service staff overall and it precipitated major industrial action in my Department. At the moment that it was making that pledge there was no manpower budget in existence or planned for six-monthly upratings.
Therefore, the House and the country have a right to regard the introduction of the six-month pledge into the Opposition's policy as an election gimmick which was forced on them by the clear, specific and long-standing commitment which we had made for substantial upratings.
However, there is another important facet of the Opposition's policy about six-monthly upratings. It is extremely significant that in February, and again in the election in October, they linked up-ratings merely to the rise in prices and never at any time, in their election manifesto or in their speeches, did they link their pledge about uprating to the rise in average national earnings, which is an integral part of our policy.
Therefore, pensioners would have received less per uprating under the Conservative policy than we have given them. One fact is unchallengeable: after just over 12 months of Labour government, pensions and other long-term benefits will have been increased by virtually 50 per cent., and the Conservatives' policy, linked as it was only to price increases, would not and could not have rivalled that.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: Is the 50 per cent. in real terms?

Mrs. Castle: It is 50 per cent. in actual terms.
As I have pointed out, the increase of 29 per cent., despite the increase in prices, has still left pensioners, on the latest price levels available to us, 10 per cent. better off than they were at the October 1973 uprating. With the propo-


sals in this Bill there will have been an actual increase of 50 per cent.
In addition, this year, 9 million people will receive another Christmas bonus, 1 million more than received the previous Christmas bonus payments. Moreover, pensioners and other beneficiaries have been given the assurance by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and by me that there will be a second uprating in December next year which will take full account of the relevant movement of earnings between now and then.
Finally, our upratings extend in full to people on supplementary benefit. The supplementary benefit scale rates are not dealt with in this Bill. They will be dealt with separately by regulations. But the increases will be of the same amounts and will take effect at the same time as the increases mentioned in this Bill.
In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment proposes, after consulting his advisory committee, to make corresponding increases in the needs allowances for rent and rate rebates and rent allowances so that, in general, as at the last uprating, housing benefits will not be affected by the increases in social security benefits proposed in this Bill.
Also, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes, having regard to the pension increases contained in this Bill, to introduce new and improved tax allowances for all elderly people over the age of 65 in 1975–76.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the right hon. Lady clarify one point? I cannot understand her answer in reply to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams). The right hon. Lady said that last month there was still a gain of 10 per cent. Beneficiaries are getting another gain of 15 per cent. I make that an overall improvement of 25 per cent. The right hon. Lady appears to make it 50 per cent. Did she use the phrase "real terms" or "money terms"?

Mrs. Castle: Taking cash terms—

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: My hon. Friend asked about real terms.

Mrs. Castle: I said that I was talking about actual terms. The right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East cannot have it both ways. He cannot attack us for increasing pensions in line with inflation and then say, "What about the improvement in real terms?". An improvement of 10 per cent. in real terms still remained, on the last available figures, from the July increase. Without waiting for the annual review to which we are statutorily committed, we are hastening to bring forward another review, within the shortest administratively practicable time, which will give another cash addition of 15½ per cent.
I repeat therefore, that, taking into account the fact that supplementary benefit rates will be increased pro rata, that housing benefits will not be affected, and that there are to be new and helpful tax reliefs for the elderly, the Conservative Party has carefully never committed itself to anything as comprehensive and generous as the policy which this Bill embodies and which the Government have introduced.
The House might be interested to know how we have fulfilled our central commitment to link increases to movements in average national earnings. It would have been simple if we could have waited until next April, read off from a convenient ready-reckoner the movement in earnings to that date and pressed a button to give immediate effect to increases of X per cent. But the real situation differs considerably from that ideal state.
We have millions of pensioners and other beneficiaries who are paid weekly at Post Offices on production of order books which contain denominated vouchers to cover a period of several months. Our system affords a feeling of security which would be lost if we were to institute a system such as is used by other European countries. The right hon. Gentleman said "We shall change the system and make it more in line with that of other European countries". He failed to tell the House that, for example, in West Germany—from which I have just returned—very often pensions and other benefits are payable by cheque monthly—in some countries bi-monthly—directly into the account of the beneficiary. That is an entirely different system, and a different tradition from ours, which is to make weekly cash payments at Post


Offices on the basis of order books that extend for a considerable period ahead.
The mind boggles at the vagaries which the European system could produce with our large number of beneficiaries, most of whom throughout their lives have been accustomed to budget on a weekly basis. It would be unwise for us to change that system without very careful thought.
Moreover, the rate having been fixed five months ahead—as our predecessors realised in their Social Security Act—we should have had to rely heavily on forecasts for the greater part of the period of eight or eight-and-a-half months between our upratings. Therefore, we decided to proceed as follows.
We have taken the latest period of nine months for which the movement in earnings was known. The Department of Employment's monthly index of average earnings—all employees—was the most up to date, and it provided us with the movement in earnings up to August 1974. Over the nine months since November 1973 the movement was just over 15½ per cent. As prices had moved by just over 12½ per cent. in the same period, we took the movement in earnings as being the more favourable for those concerned and proposed an increase, after rounding, of 16 per cent. in the pension rate for a single person. Married couples will get an increase of 15½ per cent.
More recent figures of earnings are now available, but they have only just become available and were not available when the Bill was published. Next year, when we formulate and announce our proposals for the uprating which will take place in December 1975, we shall take into account the movement in earnings and prices from August 1974 onwards, so that this September's figures will be included then.
The linking of long-term benefits to the movement of average earnings is embodied permanently for the future in Clauses 3 and 4 in a form which is much simpler and easier for everyone to understand than that which is already on the statute book. It is this start, and the principle of the link with the movement in average earnings, that are so important for pensioners and that ensure that their fortunes are now tied for good to those of the working population. Indeed, they do better than do those of working age

because we link pensions to movements in gross earnings, and pensioners do not have the deductions for national insurance contributions nor, in most cases, do they have to pay income tax as does the working population. The continuing link is the crucial point, rather than a precise relationship between the pension and earnings at any given point in time.
I do not want to weary the House by giving a complete catalogue of the changes in rates outlined in Clauses 1 and 2 and Schedules 1 and 2, but I should like to quote one or two examples. The widowed mother's allowance, the widow's pension at the standard rate and the invalidity pension all go up from £10 to £11·60, along with the standard rate of retirement pension. The benefit for a widowed mother with two dependent children, for example, will go up from £19·80 to £22·90, including family allowances.
The benefit of an invalidity pensioner whose inacapacity began before the age of 35, and who therefore gets invalidity allowance at the highest rate, will go up, if he has a dependent wife and three children, from £32·75 to £37·85, including family allowances.
Benefits payable at the reduced rates will go up in proportion to the standard rates and increments to pensions, which are payable when retirement is deferred, will—from April—be uprated along with and in proportion to increases in the main pension.
Industrial injuries disablement pensions at the 100 per cent. disablement rate will go up from £16·40 to £19, and the other benefits under the industrial injuries scheme will also be increased.
The increases proposed for short-term benefits—that is, unemployment benefit, sickness benefit, injury benefit and maternity allowance—are £1·20 for a single person and £2 for a marired couple, or 14 per cent. That is higher than the movement in prices to which they are theoretically linked. Here there is a real increase. A man entitled to unemployment benefit with increases in respect of a dependent wife and two children will have his flat-rate benefit increased from £19·30 to £22·10 including family allowance. That is quite apart from any earnings-related supplement to which he may be entitled.
I turn to Clauses 5, 6 and 7 which provide the legislative framework for the


two entirely new disablement benefits outlined in the recent report I made to the House. The non-contributory invalidity pension, which we visualise will come into effect during the year 1975–76, is provided for in the Bill, and so is the invalid care allowance which will be introduced in the following financial year. These benefits will provide new, non-means-tested help for those of working age who are deprived of the opportunity to earn their living and who have no rights under existing contributory insurance schemes. The benefits embody an entirely new principle and they must be considered in the context of the comprehensive new provision for the disabled which we discussed in my report to the House called "Social Security Provision for Chronically Sick and Disabled People".
This is quite an historic moment. We have made an important breakthrough here. These are only the first steps towards a new policy for the disabled over a wide field. These first steps bring a new non-means-tested security to nearly 250,000 people whose needs we have neglected for far too long.
These provisions in the Bill will be followed by legislation on two further matters. There is, first, a mobility allowance which will be available to all severely disabled people whether or not they can drive a car; and, secondly, there will be a new benefit for the disabled housewife for whom we are currently studying and working out new criteria. I hope that we shall be able to legislate on these two further measures in this Session of Parliament. We shall be phasing in the mobility allowance by stages, starting next year.
I wish to inform the House what we have decided to do about the difficulty for disabled drivers caused by the increase in VAT on petrol introduced on 18th November. To cover the extra cost of petrol, we are proposing to double the £5 a year petrol allowance now paid to some drivers and to extend that allowance, which was partially withdrawn by the Conservatives, to all drivers of invalid vehicles and cars provided by the Health Departments. This allowance is tax-free and payments of the £10 rate will begin to be made as soon as administratively possible—namely, in January.
There are two further important changes to which I must draw attention. Clause 9 provides for an increase in family allowances—the first since they were last increased by a Labour Government in 1968.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Before the right hon. Lady leaves the point about disabled people, I should like to ask her to deal with the question of disabled housewives. Will she accept that there should be no interval of time between her proposals for an invalidity pension in the present legislation and the bringing in of the disabled housewives' allowance? Will she confirm that, as matters now stand, a single woman will receive the new invalidity pension but will lose it as soon as she marries or goes to live with her boy friend? Does she agree that it is disturbing that the pension should be based on chastity?

Mrs. Castle: No, the criterion does not relate to chastity. The criterion is in the dependancy of the disabled married woman, who may have been disabled from childhood: never earned her living, never been a wage earner in her own right. We realise the importance of making provision for the disabled housewife who is incapable of running her own home. This is a new criterion, a new test. It is not as easy to introduce as is a non-contributory invalidity pension where there is a clear assumption that someone of working age would be working if it were not for his or her disability.
We have made clear that our policy embraces four benefits—namely, the noncontributory invalidity pension, the invalid care allowance, the mobility allowance and the disabled housewives' allowance. They will be phased in during the next three years or so.
We start with the non-contributory invalidity pension, tax-free, and with phase I of the mobility allowance, although we are not legislating for it in this Bill. We then move to the invalid care allowance, and as soon as those allowances are in operation we shall introduce our disabled housewives' benefit. We are losing no time in going into discussions to work out the new and rather difficult criteria for assessing incapacity of a woman to do her own housework.
There are demands on medical manpower and there are a whole new number of assessments to be made. The House will be unwise if it neglects the manpower and staff implications of the policy which we all want to see introduced as quickly as possible.

Mr. David Price: Does the right hon. Lady agree that there are certain categories of incapacity which can be laid down and that generally those where medical examination is required are borderline cases? Does she agree that there are other categories which do not require medical examination?

Mrs. Castle: We shall be discussing these details with the disabled people and their organisations, such as DIG and other groups. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, with his responsibilities for the disabled, is losing no time in carrying out discussions. The House must admit that we lost little time in producing our report and in making provision for the chronically sick and disabled. We produced our proposals in advance of the deadline laid down in legislation, which was October. In producing the proposal we did not merely analyse the problem but produced solutions. We have lost no time in legislating for those two benefits, and I hope that we shall be legislating for the other two in this Session of Parliament so that the House will have a full opportunity to consider all the implications.
I was referring to Clause 9 which provides for increased family allowances. I repeat that this is the first increase since family allowances were last raised in 1968, again under a Labour Government. The increase broadly restores the allowance to its value at the time of the last increase. We are committed in our child allowance scheme to extending family allowances to the first child. I shall be making a statement on the timing and other details of our proposals in due course.
Clause 10 substantially improves supplementary benefit disregards. The improvements, which will be brought into effect as soon as operationally possible after the main uprating, will mean that all savings up to the level of £1,200 will be completely ignored in calculating benefits. The disregards of income will

be simplified and the amount of earnings to be disregarded will be doubled. This will bring special help to the one-parent family and will meet one of the recommendations in the Finer Report.
The benefit increases contained in the Bill will 20 to about 15 million individuals and families in our community. The total cost of the increases and improvements will be almost £1,150 million in a full year. The Bill provides for over £1,055 million of this sum, of which £810 million will fall on the National Insurance Fund and some £245 million will fall on the Consolidated Fund. Increases in war pensions and supplementary benefit scale rates will cost more than a further £90 million in a full year. The contribution rates and levels set out in the Social Security Amendment Bill, which is now going through the House, will provide sufficient income to pay for the benefits in the year 1975–76.
This is the package of compassion which we confidently put to the House. I have no doubt that hon. Members during this debate will ask for more. We would all like to be able to do even more. But what we have proved in the Bill is that at a time of acute economic stringency the Government will not sacrifice the neediest in our society. I suggest that we should not belittle what these improvements will mean to those who receive them.
I have had a flood of "thank you" letters from people all over the country in the last few weeks. I wish to quote to the House one letter which comes from Watford:
Dear Mrs. Castle, My wife and I would like to extend to you our sincere gratitude for the measures you have taken to care for the disabled, the under-privileged and the old-age pensioners. This morning's post contained a wonderful surprise, the £10 bonus. I can assure you that it was very much appreciated. The forthcoming increase in my invalidity pay will be a great help. I am 64 years of age, my wife is of pensionable age, but is unable to draw a pension until next year when I am 65, but owing to the fulfilment of your election promises the forthcoming increase in old-age pensions will help us. We are helped in the payment of our rent and rates by our local council, and in spite of the trials that old age can bring to those who are not financially secure, we feel we have much to be grateful for.
Reading letters like that makes me realise how much the rest of us have to be grateful for, and it is a pleasure


to be able in this Bill to discharge some of our gratitude to these pensioners.

5.10 p.m.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is inevitable and understandable that a Bill of this kind, designed to bring more cash help to the most hard-pressed members of our community, should receive a general welcome. It is also inevitable that it should happen at a time of acute economic stringency when the poorest are the most hard hit by the blizzard of inflation. Again it is inevitable that a Bill of this kind should provoke a number of detailed and substantial criticisms from those who feel that they have not received enough consideration or that they have been left out altogether. I shall return to some of them in a moment.
Before doing that, I wish to strike a much more sombre note. It would not be right for this House to be carried away in a mood of euphoric benevolence and pride in its own generosity with the passage of legislation of this kind. We do that at the expense of our sense of reality. I have received letters of the kind quoted by the Secretary of State. They are extremely moving, because there are many people in real want in our society who are moved to write in that way to people in the position of the right hon. Lady. But we should not allow letters of that kind to conceal from ourselves that the £10 bonus is now worth far less than it was a year or two ago—I make no party point—and that the money with which we are making it available is running away and losing its value fast.
We should not allow ourselves to speak with pride about this being the second largest increase made in the pension, as though in itself that was automatically a source of pride, when the foundation of the increase is no more than to protect people against the ravages of inflation. Rather than a sense of pride, we should have a sense of failure, because it is a measure of our failure. It is a revealing insight into the right hon. Lady's mind when she says, "Last July we had an increase, and here we are again." Here, indeed, we are again on the inflationary roundabout.
That is not to say that the Opposition do not like the Government's conversion to the proposition that in our present circumstances a more rapid pattern of increases is necessary. We still argue that, if the Government were committed to that, it should be possible to achieve a more regular pattern. But let us not deceive ourselves into thinking that this is a magnificent state of affairs and cast away our sense of reality.
We all wish to help those most in need in our community. But when doing that we must not forget that our ability to provide that help depends on our capacity to produce and to be able to spend the basic wealth on which this benevolence depends. There are strict limits in our capacity to spend resources because of the oil crisis and the deficit facing us. There are severe and growing constraints on our capacity to produce the wealth needed because of the continuance of the inflation against which this legislation is no more than a defence—inflation fired to a significant extent by the collective selfishness of coercive industrial action.
We must not allow these harsh and uncomfortable truths to be concealed from ourselves by the mechanism, acceptable though it may be, of earnings-related contributions to the National Insurance Fund. The total cost of these changes is £1,125 million, of which £810 million will be met from the National Insurance Fund.
In paragraph 3 of the White Paper accompanying the Bill, the Government Actuary says in bland prose characteristic of that distinguished gentleman:
With a system of mainly earnings related contributions the income will rise automatically with increases in the general level of earnings and will broadly be sufficient to meet the cost of corresponding increases in the level of benefits. …
The right hon. Lady made the same point more simply in announcing these increases on 13th November:
…the inherent buoyancy of revenue from fully earnings-related national insurance contributions is expected to be sufficient to cover this additional fund expenditure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November 1974; Vol. 881, c. 419.]
So be it. In so far as it is designed to keep the fund, and so the beneficiaries, in line with the growth in real wealth, such a system is fine. But we must not overlook that it also keeps benefits no more


than in line with the on-going pace of inflation. That may also be acceptable, but it can also serve to conceal from us the reality of inflation, to accustom us to it, even to the point of accepting it. If we leant on that crtuch, it would be disastrous. We must guard against any such feeling.
It was said by someone some years ago that national insurance brought the magic of averages to the help of millions. But we must guard against the comparable but profoundly different danger that the mystique of earnings-related contributions may bring false comfort to tens of millions.
That is why I say with due solemnity that I must utter the earnest warning that all that we try to do in this kind of legislation may turn out to be of no real value unless and until inflation is brought under control. The Government themselves must be more robust in that direction. If that does not happen, the right hon. Lady may find that she has been building castles of compassion on foundations of sand.
For this reason, it is important for the House to examine the assumptions about inflation on which the Bill is founded. I begin with the fact that the Government Actuary's report accompanying the last up-rating Bill which came into effect in July was founded upon Government expectations that the rate of increase in earnings would be 12½ per cent. per annum. In the Government Actuary's report accompanying this Bill it is assumed that between now and March 1976 average earnings will increase at an annual rate of 17½ per cent. There is a large and deeply disturbing increase there.
On 13th November the Secretary of State explained that the present increase in long-term benefits was founded on the fact that earnings, over the last available nine months, had risen by 15½ per cent. That is an annual rate in excess of 20 per cent. Today she said that the latest figures showed that even this latest increase is not high enough, and she promised even further escalation.
We have cause for grave alarm if these figures are right and if average wages have increased at the rate of 12½ per cent., then 17½ per cent., and now more than 20 per cent. The rate of wage

inflation underlines the Government's lack of impact on the basic problem besetting all of this, which is the runaway pattern of increase promised us in the future in relation to pay settlements in the public sector.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Brian O'Malley): As the right hon. and learned Gentleman is so concerned and seems anxious at this stage to allocate blame, if blame is to allocated, perhaps he will tell the House about two matters. First, in the rate on inflation that he has described, what has been the percentage contribution of the threshold mechanism which was designed and arranged by his Government? Second, in the wage index for the latest available month, what proportion of the movement of the index in that month is the responsibility again of the trigger mechanism set up by his Government?

Sir G. Howe: Part of the pattern of pay increases is due to the threshold, but the Government deceive themselves and the nation if they overlook the extent to which they are responsible for the atmosphere of total irresponsibility prevailing in public sector pay settlements now. That is the real gravity of the charge that I am making.
I do not want hon. Gentlemen opposite to run away with any cosy illusion that they have now won the political argument by this smart intervention. I do not suggest that the Conservative Party has no responsibility for the pattern of inflation that has developed. But we should face the fact that both parties are now trying to grapple with this hideous problem. We should not kid ourselves that, by the simple pattern of linking benefits to whatever may be the going assumption, we are solving the problem. Indeed, we should not cast around ourselves a cloak of generosity at the expense of others. We are seeking only to defend the hardest hit from the consequences of what has happened. That is why I remain concerned at the way in which the Government are failing to face this underlying inflationary problem.
Other aspects deserve to be probed. The right hon. Lady explained that the long-term benefits are going up by either 15½ per cent. or 16 per cent., according to how one rounds them, and


that the short-term benefits are going up by only 14 per cent. The right hon. Lady explained that that 14 per cent. was more than the pattern of increases in prices over the nine months period.
How is the distinction drawn between the 14 per cent. and the 16 per cent.? Is the 14 per cent. the Government's estimate of the likely rate of price rises over the nine months or so during which this new award is likely to be effective? How are we to answer that question when the expected increase in nationalised industry prices, to which the Chancellor looked forward as soon as possible, have not been disclosed? What are the expected increases in nationalised industry prices? How can we tell whether these benefits will be enough to meet them? Are those increases to remain a secret until after the Labour Party Conference next week? Why has nothing been proposed, as I understand, about the heating allowances, increased in July, which form an important part of the standard of living of the most elderly in our society?
Why, if it be the right assumption, do the Government expect a gap of 1½ per cent. or 2 per cent. between prices and earnings? Is not the social contract designed to keep the two in line? Is not the fact that the Government, on their own admission, expect earnings to rise at an accelerating rate ahead of prices—17½ per cent. up to April 1976; 20 per cent. on current assumptions—the clearest possible confirmation that the social contract is sadly, or however one may feel about it, turning out to be a busted flush? Does not the Bill and the assumptions on which it is explicitly based demonstrate beyond doubt the falsity of the economic prospectus on which the Government recently presented themselves to the country?
How can we compare, with any kind of credibility, the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the election campaign, that inflation would be running somewhere near to 10 per cent. by the end of 1975, with the assumption enjoined upon the Government Actuary for the purpose of the Bill that wage inflation will be running at 17½ per cent. until April of the following year? That is the gravity of the situation against which we have to judge the real merit of the Bill. That is the sombre background

against which the House should consider the other wider measures contained in this legislation.
I should like now to refer to the improvement in disregards, which we welcome. I asked the Secretary of State a question when she made her statement last week. I confess to trying to relate the provisions of the Bill to the unrecognisable amended provisions of Schedule 2 of the Supplementary Benefit Act 1966, which is not even to be found by that name in the statute book. I asked: does the improvement in disregards go anywhere towards abolishing the whole idea of an earnings rule for children under 16 years of age in families in receipt of supplementary benefit? The right hon. Lady will be familiar with the point. I understand that the teenage child who does a job—even a newspaper round—may not earn more than £1 if he is 15 or £2 if he is 16 without having the whole lot, penny for penny, taken away. The cost of abolishing that constraint, as I last read it, would be no more than £150,000. I cannot tell whether the Bill proposes to elimnate that.

Mr. O'Malley: I can deal with that point straight way. The Bill provides a £4 disregard in such circumstances.

Sir G. Howe: It makes a £4 general disregard. In those circumstances I should have thought that it would cost even less to abolish the restriction altogether for teenage children. It would seem a socially desirable thing to do. To have a child, in whatever circumstances in a family dependent on supplementary benefit, feeling that anything he earned beyond £4 a week could result in a penny-for-penny deduction is an unhappy situation in which to launch him on the business of life and earning his own living. I hope that the Government will give some attention to that matter. I appreciate that the change makes some difference, but for the sake of a small amount it is worth considering more sympathetically.
I turn to what the right hon. Lady said about the provisions for the disabled—the non-contributory invalidity pension and the invalid care allowance. Clearly they go a small part of the way to meeting the income needs of the chronically disabled. It is clear that it will take a long time to bridge that gap. It will be


more difficult for a Government pledged to irrelevant policies, such as nationalisation at great public expense, to raise the resources with which to bridge that gap. Indeed, such policies will diminish the chances of doing so.
I was glad to hear what the right hon. Lady said about the forthcoming mobility allowance. We shall look forward to the legislation on that matter.
It is worth reminding the House that all these advances relating to the disabled are founded upon solid advances undertaken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) when we were in office—

Mrs. Castle: Absolute nonsense.

Sir G. Howe: —to the advantage of 600,000 families.
The right hon. Lady does herself little credit by reacting to that and saying, as she does, "Absolute nonsense". One thing that has failed more than anything else to commend her to the country has been her total lack of generosity to her predecessor, who had a distinguished record in pioneering important changes in social services and introduced the attendance allowance and the long-term special invalidity benefit.

Mrs. Castle: I have done nothing to discredit the standing of the right hon. Gentleman in this House. It was his inability to do justice where justice was due that I regret. The concept of the attendance allowance was pioneered by my predecessor, the late Richard Crossman, in his National Superannuation Bill, which was taken up and followed by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). The new disablement benefits, which have been worked out during months of hard work by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State who has special responsibility for the disabled, were never put forward by the Conservative Party.

Sir C. Howe: This does the right hon. Lady and the House even less credit than her attitude so far. The country hates this kind of badinage. I make the point only to establish that we all identify here a huge target of need that we want to knock down and conquer. We must recognise that our resources will fall far short of what we want to achieve as

quickly as we would like. The cash provisions in the Bill fall far short of the cash needs identified by the Disablement Income Group. I am not saying this by way of criticism. The progress which has been made has been founded upon a joint recognition of the need and a joint movement towards it. Of course, Richard Crossman was at work on the proposals, but—

Mrs. Castle: He legislated on them.

Sir G. Howe: My right hon. Friend put them on the statute book. We placed on the statute book the commitment to produce an annual review of provision for the disabled, to which the right hon. Lady responded in September. The matter comes to a head in this way. On the same day in September of this year the Government, with the White Paper machinery behind them, and our party produced policy documents assessing the problems of the disabled and putting forward proposals that were very comparable. I shall look at this in detail. The Secretary of State must be patient and listen to my analysis of the proposals.
The new non-contributory invalidity pension is an identical concept to that which we set out. It is a solution that commends itself. But we question two aspects of the way in which the Government have set about it. Can it be right, in introducing that benefit, to offset, as the Government propose, supplementary benefit completely against the new benefit? For many people this would turn out to be an improvement that is no improvement at all. Can it be right to subject the non-contributory invalidity pension to what is in effect a 100 per cent. earnings rule?
Clause 6(1), if I understand it correctly, says that the benefit shall be payable only for any day on which a person is incapable of work. That seems to be an unattractive proposition. Only about 4,000 out of 260,000 of the most severely disabled, classes 1 to 4, are at work, according to the 1972 survey. Surely it would be sensible to continue, if we can, to encourage such self-help among the disabled by avoiding a situation which deprives them of benefit on any day on which they are capable of work? I acknowledge that the invalid care allowance—and I hope that I am being fairer


than the Secretary of State—is a potentially valuable idea. We shall study it closely.
I turn to the Government's decision to exclude married women from the noncontributory invalidity pension. Because of the consequences of this, I have grave doubts whether it is right to do it in two stages. We proposed to provide for married women. The Government proposed to do so, but separately and later. It is difficult to see why benefit for married women should be deferred in this way when their contributions to the homes and families in which they live is substantial. It is easy to see that by making that separation the Government have landed themselves in a predictable and justifiable mess over the impact of the cohabitation rule. This has already been denounced by many of my hon. Friends and by the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk).
If we introduce a benefit that is not available for married women, as is the case in the present proposal, it seems that the cohabitation rule follows because without it we should be making it available for those who dwelt in sin and not for those who were married. It makes a strong case against severing the two proposals in the way intended. The Government will have much trouble from this proposal.
I wish to know whether the Government propose to avoid some of the trouble by responding to the recommendations of the Finer Committee to the effect that benefit should continue to be payable in a cohabitation rule case at least until the case is proved against the cohabiting woman. This would go some way to meeting anxieties.
It is easy, in the face of inflation, to understand the case for improvement in family allowances. The Opposition were also pledged to move in this direction as resources became available. But we wonder how much the proposed increases will be worth, after payment of tax, for a family paying the standard rate of income tax. Another unheralded feature of the Government's economic policy is the increase in charges for school meals which the Secretary of State for Education promised as long ago as 8th November but which may also be deferred until after

the end of next week. What will be the net increase in the value of family allowances after taking account of these matters?
We are glad that the Government intend in due course to extend the family allowance to cover the first child. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) will follow up aspects of this matter if he catches Mr. Speaker's eye. We also note the intention to raise family income supplement and rent and rate rebates. But there is surely a consequence that the overlap between tax brackets and means-tested benefits will again grow substantially. Thus the consequence of the Government's policies will be to transform the poverty trap into a much larger and more gaping, uncamouflaged elephant pit for many people.
Does this not underline the strength of our case that there is no satisfactory answer to all the problems short of a decision to move ahead with the introduction of a tax credit scheme? Similar problems will arise for millions of pensioners who will still be below the supplementary benefit level even on maturity of the second pension scheme in 20 years. Other categories could also be helped by the introduction of a tax credit scheme.
The Government propose to recruit 1,250 more public servants in the first instance to carry out their proposals and a further 600 in the long term. Would it not be better if those public servants were engaged in preparing a coherent framework towards the establishment of a tax credit scheme? We deeply regret the continuing failure of the Government to make progress with implementing a tax credit scheme.
We welcome the modest improvement in provision for the disabled and the provision to protect existing beneficiaries against inflation. But the proposals are little, if anything, more than that. We remain gravely sceptical about the Government's capacity to deliver any benefits in a form that will be substantially worth more than the inflationary paper on which they are printed.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. George Cunningham: There are many provisions in this Bill and I would have liked to take time to congratulate my


right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench on the provisions. But I hope that they will forgive me if I do not do that because I want to concentrate on a provision which I must criticise. My right hon. and hon. Friends might more easily forgive me if I say that I criticise not Department of Health and Social Security Ministers but Treasury Ministers whom I regard as having made a first-class boob on a matter related to both the Budget and a provision in the Bill. I apologise in advance that I shall have to leave the House for a previously arranged engagement soon after I have made my speech and so I may miss at least part of the wind-up speeches.
The feature of the Bill I want to deal with is contained in Clause 1(3). I welcome the fact that the Bill will raise the earnings rule limit from £9·50 to £13. But I say, as many hon. Members have said in the past, that the time has come when the earnings rule must be abolished at the earliest opportunity. This is the opportunity, when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has apparently persuaded himself that he is prepared to do without £280 million of revenue relating to people over retirement age. The announcement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in his Budget Speech of the coming into force of the new age allowance for people over 65 has persuaded me that the normal defence of the earnings rule—that we simply cannot afford to abolish it at the moment—is no longer valid.
The case against the earnings rule has often been rehearsed in the House, most recently by the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) last April or July. I do not intend to go into it in detail but I wish to refer to what I see as the heads of the argument against it. We can perhaps go into it in greater detail during the Committee stage.
First, there is the notorious disadvantage that it applies to earnings and not to other forms of income. If a person over retirement age has an investment income, no matter what size that income is, his retirement pension is not diminished by one penny as a consequence of that income. If a person has retired from a large company on, say, £10,000 a year, his State retirement pension is not diminished by one penny as a conse-

quence of his company pension, although for tax purposes that pension will be treated as earned income. The earnings rule applies only to the person who, not having enough income from other sources, decides to continue working after retirement age partly so that he, or she, will not be a burden on the community and will not have to go to the Supplementary Benefits Commission for assistance. That person is the one we pick out and upon whom we confer a disadvantage by means of the earnings rule. There is a severe disincentive on a person over retirement age to provide for himself or herself.
Secondly, the earnings rule applies for those years when it will operate most severely as a disincentive. It does not apply for all the years after retirement age but only for five years after that age. If the retired person can stand the fact that he or she will be losing a large part, or all, of the retirement pension for five years, after that we say to him, "You can go on earning as much as you like and we shall not now abate your pension by any amount". Of course, by this time the person has been so discouraged from earning that he has stopped going out to work.
Another disadvantage is that since the earnings rule permits earnings up to a certain level—in future £13—what often happens is that the person gives up a job he was doing and instead takes on a menial job so that he does not have his statutory pension diminished by earnings over £13. Many retired people rightly regard this as humiliating. They also have the experience, when everyone else in the factory or office is being given a rise, of having the boss come to them and say, "You do not want the extra £2 or £3 do you? You will not get it, so there is no point in paying it to you." That is, fairly, resented.
If we abolished the earnings rule, we should also abolish what I suppose would be called the retirement rule at the same time because, strictly speaking, at the moment if a person does not retire from a job at all, if he is never off the books even for a notional instant, he does not have the £13 disregarded, He has to go through the sham of retiring and then being re-employed before that situation arises.

Mr. Robert Boscawen: Will the hon. Gentleman also agree that because of the earnings rule there is a great disincentive for the employer who employs a lot of women to move over to equal pay.

Mr. Cunningham: I certainly do. There is a disincentive on any employer to pay more money to someone subject to the earnings rule, whether it be to take account of inflation, because that person has been promoted, or is fit to do a better job, or for equal pay purposes. The scale of the effect of the earnings rule is well appreciated by the victims of it, although not always, I think, by those hon. Members who are not among those who attend our social security debates.
Between the levels of income per week of £13 and £17 it means a reduction in pension to the tune of 50 per cent. of the money earned. The other 50 per cent. is often subject to tax, so that there is an effective deduction of 67p for every pound earned per week between £13 and £17. That is enough to put anyone off. Above the level of £17 the employee does not keep a single penny. Every extra pound that he earns is taken away until he gets to the point of earning £25. Then he can keep the whole of the rest. I presume that that £25 limit will be increased to £27, given the new rates.
There are also disadvantages between the sexes. With men the earnings rule applies up to the age of 70, which is very close to the expectation of life for a man. If he tries to earn a living instead of depending upon other people, we take away a large part of his earnings. With women, although the disadvantage is different, it is equally serious. We are saying to women between the ages of 60 and 65—and many of them feel perfectly able to go on working and want to do so—"We regard you as retired and are not prepared to let you keep all the money you choose to earn." The rule is obviously made from the point of view of the economy of the country in that we are discouraging people from contributing to the economy by working for it. Instead they are drawing benefit from it without contributing.
The reason why I make this speech now rather than last summer, as did the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams), is that then I was prepared

to accept the Government's defence that while the earnings rule is indefensible the Government simply could not afford the cost of abolishing it. Representatives on both Front Benches have made that kind of statement. They gave up all defence of the earnings rule except for on point of the cost.
But along comes the Chancellor with an austerity Budget and introduces a new age allowance to take the place of the old age relief for people over the age of 65. He proposes to spend on this—that is, to forgo tax on this—no less than £280 million in a full year. The people to benefit from this new relief are roughly the same people who are victimised by the earnings rule.
If the Government feel that they have £280 million to dispense with in that category, there is no doubt that they ought to give priority to abolishing the earnings rule, which would cost only £175 million at the maximum. They would still have £100 million left over to combat the tax incidence on people over retirement age, although to a lesser extent than the Chancellor proposes. The Chancellor's proposal for the new age allowance is a good idea in itself, although I am surprised that he feels that the present state of the economy justifies him in introducing it now.
I cannot believe that Ministers, presented with a choice between abolishing the earnings rule or introducing this new age allowance, would seriously say that it is better to go for the age allowance and to leave the earnings rule in existence. The cost of abolishing the earnings rule and the retirement rule, according to an Answer from the Under-Secretary of State the other day, would be £175 million at current rates of benefit. Moreover, there would be an abatement of that cost, because there would be tax revenue to be derived from the extra income that people would have. It is not possible to be very accurate on that possible tax revenue but it would probably bring the net cost to public funds down to about £130 million.
I accept that there are two funds involved. The earnings rule, if abolished, would place an additional burden upon the National Insurance Fund, whereas the forgoing of tax does not touch that fund but affects the Government's general


revenue. However, especially when we are altering contributions to the National Insurance Fund, we ought to be capable of seeing these two problems as one. Although these two options that the Government have are directed roughly at the same group of people—those over the age of retirement—the differences are of interest and they show that it would have been more sensible to abolish the earnings rule.
First, there is the fact that women who are subject to the rule will get nothing out of the Chancellor's proposal because women are subject to the earnings rule between the ages of 60 and 65 while the Chancellor's largesse begins only at the age of 65. Women are geting no quid quo pro out of this at all. They will continue to be subject to the full ferocity of the earnings rule without any abatement through the Chancellor's present decisions.
Secondly, the money will go mainly to the better off in retirement. Let me say at once that it will not go to anyone with an income of over £3,000 a year. There is to be a cut-off at £3,000 a year. But the present age relief goes to people with incomes roughly up to £1,000 a year for a single person or about £1,500 a year for a couple. The Chancellor's largesse will be distributed, therefore, to people who have incomes between those levels and the new cut-off level of £3,000 a year. A married couple who in retirement have an income of £3,000 a year are very well off indeed compared with the vast majority of people in retirement. If one thinks of them having a national insurance pension of about £900 a year, one appreciates that this means that they must have a private pension or a private income of over £2,000 a year. By normal standards, therefore, they must have had a final salary of about £4,000 or £5,000 a year. These are the people upon whom most of the Chancellors' largesse is being distributed.
I do not believe that Ministers of the Department of Health and Social Security—this explains my irritation in this matter—in fact decided that it was sensible to choose the tax relief option rather than the earlings rule option, because the secrecy with which the Budget is so unnecessarily shrouded would ensure—it is my uninformed belief—that the Chancel-

lor and his fellow Treasury Ministers decided to do this without full consultation with the other relevant Departments in Whitehall. I have not inquired of my colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Security whether this is the case. It might be embarrassing if I were to do so. I simply assert this on the basis of 10 years' experience in Whitehall, and I am absolutely confident that it is the case.
I direct these criticisms at Treasury Ministers, who are not present to hear them but who will hear of them in one way or another. I say to them that just as the Treasury has the job of coordinating other Departments in Whitehall, the Treasury might do a bit of co-ordinating itself. This first-class boob has occurred because Treasury Ministers did not have the common sense to look at the obvious option as an alternative to that which they chose. What they should have done, in consultation with my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Health and Social Security, was to abolish the earnings rule—as the Chancellor apparently has £150 million which he does not need—and to use the remainder to modify the tax incidence for people over the age of 65 by introducing, for example, the tax allowance but having the cut-off at a level of £2,000 instead of £3,000. I guess that the sums would have worked out to roughly the same cost as those which the present arrangement involves.
I am not prepared in future to vote for the retention of the earnings rule. I shall never again vote for the retention of that rule. Given any opportunity, I shall always vote against it. I am not prepared at this stage to vote for the Chancellor's proposal to introduce this age relief unless the earnings rule is abolished. I would put a limit of April 1976—because I am a very reasonble person, I say April 1976—as the date by which this earnings rule must be not just further modified along the path on which it has been modified over the years but totally eradicated from the system. The Treasury may not like this situation, but it has brought it upon itself. It may be no bad thing that it has done so, because by this boob we may finally get rid of the earnings rule—an object for which we have all been striving for many years.

5.55 p.m.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: It is always a pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). His heart is in the right place. He knows his stuff and masters his facts. He produces unanswerable cases. This is not the only occasion on which he has done that. We on the Opposition benches feel just as he does about the earnings rule. It is only a question of strategy and tactics to get the Departments concerned to see that public opinion will not tolerate the continuation of the earnings rule. I hope that we have the opportunity to go into this matter in greater detail in Committee. Perhaps we may even score some victories. Who knows?
The Bill gives away over £1,000 million. No right hon. or hon. Member will quarrel too vigorously with that. But I am glad that on this occasion we have the opportunity of a proper parliamentary discussion, unlike the last occasion when the stages in the House of Commons were unnecessarily curtailed, because there is so much in the Bill which needs examination. Some of the points which I want to make about the Bill are truly Second Reading points, but there are also many other things which will have to be dealt with more fully in Committee. I hope that I shall have the honour of being selected to serve on the Committee.
The questions which we have to look at in relation to this £1,000 million are whether the money is being wisely spent and what it shows us of the Government's philosophy. It does not show us very much. There are so many questions which remain unanswered, even if one has studied the Bill and the explanatory documents.
When there are upratings of retirement and unemployment benefits, and so on, I make a practice of examining the relationships which are introduced between the single person's benefit and the benefit for a couple. Once again, one finds here some seeming anomalies. Perhaps they are inexplicable, and perhaps there may be answers. But the House does not have these answers, and it should have them.
The retirement benefit was £10 for a single person, to be raised to £11·60, and £16 for a couple, to be raised to £18·50.
Obviously the benefit for two people living together is not equal to twice the benefit of a single person. I have mentioned this matter previously, and I do not want to labour the point. It must be deemed, however, that there is some common element for a household when there are two people in it instead of only one. That does not have to be repeated and I do not quarrel with that philosophy. But we must examine the figures to see what is being done.
Under the benefits which were introduced earlier by the Government, the £10 and £16 benefits, one could deduce that the common element was £4 for a retirement pensioner. If my arithmetic is corect, it now becomes £4·70. What was the single person's benefit of £6 becomes £6·90.
With unemployment and sickness benefits one finds that the common element is still much less. It is only £3·30. Why was the common element for a retired couple deemed to be £4 but that for unemployed and sick couples £3·30 and now £3·70? It is still £1 a week less. The House is entitled to an answer on that matter not just because it is important to the people concerned but because so much public money is involved. It is not just a matter involving these increases. We find that these anomalies persist as though there is some policy at the back of them, but we cannot deduce what it is.
Industrial injuries benefits are on a different scale altogether. The common element—which is £4 for retirement pensioners and £3·30 for the unemployed—is £6·05 for people drawing benefits through industrial injury, and that is now being raised to £6·45—much the highest common household element of the three I am not saying whether I think these are right or wrong, because I do not understand the philosophy. I wish that I did, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us what the thinking is that has gone into these important figures which matter so much to so many people.
I have said before and I say again now, because it must be said, that what we are working towards is a system of housing allowances. These figures which are hidden in the tables in the Bill are all about housing allowances, but they are not adapted to the actual housing need. This is where the Government ought to


be going forward. There is no sign of a philosophy emerging. I do not think that the right hon. Lady said anything about this.
The need to introduce housing allowances is obvious, not only because the actual cost of rent varies so much that to deal with it by a blanket allowance is wasteful in some cases and under-providing in others, but also because it is a way of escape from the cohabitation rule. Once a housing allowance is linked to a household and is made a separate element for the household, it is not necessary to ask embarrassing questions about the status of a couple and their relations with each other. It is simply necessary to discover who is the householder and to give him the benefit. It is so obviously fraudulent to claim two household benefits for one household that the majority of the public would be on the side of the Department instead of being against it as they are at the moment.
There is also the very important question of reducing the numbers of people on supplementary benefit. The differences between the rents which people must pay bring umpteen hundreds of thousands of people into supplementary benefit. If there were a housing allowance which took account of the actual amount of the rent, all that case work could be got rid of.
I entirely share the sentiments of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury about the desirability of abolishing the earnings rule. I am not certain whether we shall succeed in getting the earnings rule abolished as early as 1976, although we should be glad if we could. If we cannot abolish it by then, why not announce now that the rule will be phased out over a period of, say, four or five years so that people know in advance what is to happen?
The earnings rule affects not only those who are now in retirement and who are starting to think about whether they should take up some sort of employment. It affects also people who are approaching retirement and who are considering whether to take up some part-time employment in retirement, and it also affects the attitude that their employers will adopt.
If everybody knew that the rule would be phased out in five years' time, or in

three years' time—I am not attached to a period of five years, but in present circumstances such a period might be realistic—those whom it would affect would be able to adapt themselves to a scheme which would be comprehensible and they would not just have to blunder along from year to year wondering whether there would be a change in the rules.
The public are entitled to know what the Government's plan is. Here again, there is no statement of philosophy and no clear pattern emerging. There is a problem at present with rising unemployment if the Government commit themselves to a policy of encouraging people to remain in work after the normal age of retirement, particularly if they have another source of income, namely, their retirement benefit. Possibly this has particular reference to skilled workers and people with experience which industry does not want to lose rather than to, say, manual workers who may ordinarily be less disposed to go on working after the age of 65 in the case of men and the age of 60 in the case of women. It may be that one is not facing a head-on collision between the interests of family men looking for work and the interests of people already in retirement and who are in two minds whether they want to work or not.
Whilst on the question of entitlement to benefit in retirement, I come to the next big question for the Government. What is their philosophy in regard to the basis of entitlement to pension? Are basic pensions paid for citizenship or in return for contributions? Now that we are moving increasingly over to earnings-related contributions and we are still maintaining flat-rate benefits, what is the Government's philosophy on this? Will they make a clear statement? Do they wish ultimately to move towards wholly earnings-related pensions or earnings-related contributions, or will they retain an element of basic pension paid for by earnings-related contributions? It matters, and we should know what the Government's thinking is on this.
I come next to the question of indexation, which is introduced in Clauses 3 and 4. Indexed increases are to be related either to earnings or to prices for the majority of benefits, whichever


system is more favourable to the beneficiaries. This will lead to some extremely delicate calculations as time passes. What is the index of earnings which is to be used? It may be my fault that I have not found that from the Bill, and perhaps it is there. Equally, what is the index of prices which is to be used?
I have often made the case once again, I must go on like a barrrel organ in the hope of changing the ideas of officialdom—that the Index of Retail Prices takes no note of family size. When the change in the Index of Retail Prices arises from a rise in the price of an item such as sugar which is repeated for each member of the family, it matters that the actual index should be calculated for the family of a different size. Obviously a single person is less affected by an increase in the price of sugar than a mother who has a husband and perhaps an aged relative in the household as well as three or four children. Obviously in that case the Index of Retail Prices is such a rough instrument that it does not provide an accurate guide. Prices may mean more than the earnings index in some cases but not in others. Once again we have no guidance from the Secretary of State as to her philosophy.
The cost of living of a family changes in ways which relate not only to the family size but to the composition of the family. If there is a sharp rise in the price of coffee that may not matter too much to a mother with four children under the age of 7 who may not drink coffee at all, but for a pensioner couple it might make much more difference.
These are matters which must be studied. I see no trace of an indication that serious study is proceeding.
Let us consider manpower and methods. We have an interesting insight here when we see that the new invalidity benefits—I am amongst those who welcome these, because we are delighted to see this improvement—will require 1,250 staff for the take-on period and 600 permanently after that. I do not know where these staff are to work or how they are to be recruited or when, but I am very interested in the subject of manpower and methods in the Department of Health and Social Security because this seems to be the stumbling block which is preventing the House and public opinion

generally from getting done the things that we want done in relation to social security.
What is to be learned about the progress on automation in the Department? We hear much about the enormous and insuperable difficulties of getting things done according to the will of the Secretary of State. She cannot get pension increases introduced in fewer than so many weeks. Incidentally, Continental countries can introduce such increases quite quickly.
The Secretary of State may have a point when she says that we are used to weekly payments whereas on the Continent the payments may be monthly or even two-monthly. However, a machine can do a job several times over without adding to the number of people involved.
Cases have to be studied here, too, because it may be that some people would prefer to draw their allowances through the Giro and it would not matter whether they had a weekly credit or a monthly credit. This might be a matter of simplification or it might be a complication to be avoided. We have no guidance.
We learn nothing about the programme of automation in the Department. What is the strategy about case work? We know how overburdened the officers of the Department are. We know that the dedicated staff in the Department are driven almost distracted by the routine work they have to do. What is being done about it? Year after year after year we hear that upratings cannot be brought in quickly and that there are obstacles in dealing with case work because of administrative difficulties. We are asking people to tackle these things not with nineteenth century methods but with eighteenth century methods. We are not making progress.
I was one of those who thought that the Department of Health and Social Security should have been merged with the Inland Revenue, not with the Ministry of Health, which was quite another matter. Perhaps the health service would not be in the state it is now in if the Ministry of Health had remained a separate Ministry. If the Department of Social Security does not want to merge with the Inland Revenue, let us hear about liaison committees and work going on between the two Departments.
Is it still the policy to buy a British computer even it it does not exist, to do a


job which is established in other countries, or is it the intention to postpone modernisation, or are the Government thinking again about this question? We need to know.
I want to come to the question of family allowances for the first child. We heard from the right hon. Lady that she is to make a statement in due course. When does "in due course" mean and when will she commit herself to this desirable—indeed, inevitable—reform? All the parties committed themselves in the elections this year to introducing family allowances for the first child. There is no controversy between the Government and the Opposition on this question.
In her correspondence with me the right hon. Lady has suggested that the difficulty of introducing legislation and getting it through the House is one of the major obstacles. Let us examine some of the other obstacles. There are, first, printing difficulties. The right hon. Lady said that it is difficult to get the printing done. I suggested that the family allowances for the first child should be introduced next April. I see that April is the date being adopted for the increase in the family allowances for the second and subsequent children. I cannot believe that printing difficulties can be a serious obstacle to the introduction of the family allowance for the first child. That is a contemptible reason which should never have been given.
We then hear about the difficulties of recruiting staff. One thousand more additional staff will be needed to give the family allowance to the first child. At a time of rising unemployment, perhaps 1,000 people might not be available to do the work. God knows, but I would not have thought that it was impossible to find these people.
We are told that they need an office the size of Centre Point and that the Government cannot find one. That is a contemptible excuse which should never have been uttered. I am not suggesting that the Department should locate these people in miserable and inadequate conditions, but surely there is somewhere in Newcastle or the new town of Washington, which is not too far from the existing office, where accommodation for 1,000 could be found. Of course, it might have been said that the computer could

not cope because it was not large enough, but in a parliamentary Answer I was told that it was large enough to handle the extra burden and that the extension was already in the programme.
There is also the difficulty of finding the children. I believe that the work has already been half done, but even if the DHSS does not know where the children are, the Inland Revenue must because the children are taken into account through PAYE. There is another way of finding where they are. It could be done through an advertisement, through FIS or through other methods which the Government have. Since family allowance is a benefit with virtually a 100 per cent. take-up, why should it be assumed that mothers would be unwilling to come forward and claim the benefit if it were made known that it was available without any test of means?
I and a group of others who are deeply committed to the idea of paying the family allowance on the first child went to see the Secretary of State. She explained that one of the major difficulties was the additional work that the recalculation of supplementary benefit would impose on staff all over the country working in the offices that handle supplementary benefit. I tabled a Question about that and I was told that if the increase in family allowances were made a disregard, which is the inevitable object of the whole manoeuvre, the extra word would be negligible. That excuse therefore falls to the ground. If the increase in family allowances were coupled with the elimination of child tax allowances, which is the nucleus of the tax credit scheme, there would be an enormous saving to the Inland Revenue and to employers in handling PAYE.
Maybe it is therefore a question of finding the money to give to the mothers. I do not believe even that. There appears to be plenty of money to give in wage increases to those who are in unions, and that is because the unions control the Labour Party and the Labour Party exists to serve them. Mothers are not in a union and therefore their pressure counts for nothing.
We therefore come to the whole question of what happens after the threshold in the Government's policy on wages and prices. There have been a series of threshold increases this year geared to a


retail price index which does not reflect family need. Whatever comes after the threshold should take note of household needs. Where these needs arise because of the presence of children, they should be catered for by increases in family allowances rather than by increases in wages across the board which would give the same benefit to single people who did not need it and to families with children who did need it.
The Government should look much more seriously at the problem of the retail price index and its relationship to families of different sizes, and not assume that they can bungle their way along making use of the average in order to save themselves administrative work and accurate thought. Family allowances are a selective method of meeting needs and protecting the people who are most exposed to inflation.
What is happening about family endowment? All the Secretary of State said today was that she will make a statement in due course. It would still be possible to introduce family allowances for the first child next April. If there were a will there would be a way.

Mr. O'Malley: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member the moment I enter the Chamber, but he has made that statement on a number of occasions before. He has been told that it would not be possible to bring in family endowment or even family allowances for first children next April, and the hon. Member knows the reasons. I wish the hon. Member would stop repeating a statement which he knows to be manifestly untrue.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: I do not agree. I do not believe that it cannot be done. In Germany the reform is being carried through in five months and the British Civil Service would rise to the demand if it had the leadership from the Secretary of State and the Government. We have not been given an inkling of what the Government's policy is on family endowment, but we know that it will be something bigger and better than tax credit, although we are never allowed to get down to brass tacks.
The real reason that family allowance for the first child is of increasing relevance is that more and more young wives are remaining at work after marriage.

The shock of losing all their earnings when the first child arrives, just when the family faces considerable extra expense, is making a large number of families think very carefully before starting a family. We have seen news today of a fall in the birth rate not only among the classes most conscious of family planning but in classes 4 and 5 as well. I hope that the Secretary of State will draw the necessary lessons from the fall in the birth rate.
The Secretary of State must think, too, about one-parent families. The raising of the disregard will be of some small help, but thousands of children in Britain are growing up in conditions of deprivation and every year that goes by matters to those children. It may not matter to the Government, but family poverty is a scandal and it is leaving a lasting blemish on coming generations. We must end it. I do not accept the Minister of State's suggestion that there are insuperable objections. We must ask the Secretary of State when she will act.
The House must see her as purely partisan in this matter because of her opposition to tax credits. She believes that because it is a Conservative idea it should therefore be opposed. I wonder whether she ever understood the tax credit scheme. I know that she was a member of the Select Committee which examined it, but the things she says about it do not seem to indicate that she has understood the principle at all.
We must also see her as heartless when it comes to mothers and children. Perhaps that is her blind spot. We have to indict her as incompetent in dealing with the reform of the organisation and methods of her Department. I am sorry that she has not been here to hear my speech, but she will be hearing from me again, at least in correspondence, on this matter.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Guy Barnett: In speaking in the debate I do not do so with the authority of the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) or my lion. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), who have both concentrated on social security matters in a way that I have not. My purpose in speaking is to raise four


points which I should like the Department to think about. Two of the points have been raised before.
I should like first to congratulate the Government, particularly my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, on the considerable advance represented by the Bill and on the announcement by my right hon. Friend last week. I do this for the main reason that the Bill reflects so clearly the commitment that the Labour Party made in both elections this year. The programme that the Labour Party put before the country was first-class, and for that reason alone I am glad to see it being carried into legislation.
A second reason why it is an important step is that it was a commitment by the Labour Party in two General Elections. We knew a good deal about the serious economic situation when we made that commitment and, if anything, the situation has become more serious since. In spite of that, we have stuck to our commitment. I am grateful for that, because a good deal of the reason for cynicism about politics and politicians over the past year or more is the failure of Governments to do what they said they would do. The fact that on both occasions after returning to power the Labour Government have done what they said they would do has restored many people's faith in politics and politicians, certainly in my constituency. That is a good reason for congratulating my hon. Friends on the Bill.
Much has already been said about the earnings rule, and I do not want to waste time by repeating the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. He put them much more ably than I could. I support his arguments, which are very sound, and I was glad to hear that the hon. Member for Kensington also supports them.
I want to produce yet another reason for believing that the earnings rule should go as a matter of urgency. About three years ago Peter Townsend wrote a book called "The Family Life of Old People", in which he came to
the inescapable conclusion…that after retirement most men in Bethnal Green could not occupy their time satisfactorily. Their life became a rather desperate search for pastimes or a gloomy contemplation of their own help-

lessness, which, at its worst, was little better than waiting to die. They found no substitute for the companionship, absorption and fulfilment of work.
The House should carefully consider that conclusion. It is often amongst those who have held skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled jobs that physical and sometimes mental deterioration take place when the element of work in their lives disappears. For that reason, the earnings rule does considerable damage.
Evidence has accumulated over the years that those who reach retiring age cease to work altogether. I am certain that a contributory factor is the earnings rule. Our social policies should encourage people to continue to work if they are healthy and well, because the consequence of not doing so may be a mental and physical deterioration in old age that might otherwise not take place. Research indicates that that may be true. I hope that for this additional reason the House will continue to press the Department and the Treasury on the matter.
The third point I want to raise is one about which I have written to my hon. Friend the Minister. It concerns old people living in their own homes who, because they possess savings, are unable to draw supplementary benefit or heating allowance. They do not have very great savings, but they have kept money on one side to insure against the need to repair their house. I am glad that there is provision in the Bill for an increase in the savings disregard to £1,200. That goes some way towards destroying the sort of problem about which I am speaking. Many of my elderly constituents have told me that, because they had £800 or £900 in a building society as insurance against, for example, a chimney falling off or a leaking roof, they were not entitled to any form of supplementary benefit or extra help.
This is not merely an important matter for old people who have money on one side for an understandable reason. It may also affect the standard and quality of our housing stock. Many houses coming on to the market have been occupied by elderly people who were unable to maintain them in a reasonable condition because of the size of their income. As a result, the houses may have to be pulled down or may have to have considerable repairs. I hope that


the Government will consider, in addition to the provision they have rightly made to raise the savings disregard, the possibility of making allowance for those in retirement who own their own homes and who may need the disregard of a further sum—perhaps only a few hundred pounds—against the possibility of repair bills and so on.
My last point follows the arguments of the hon. Member for Kensington. I do not want to take up all his criticisms of the Department. I cannot believe that all he said was in accordance with the facts. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to tell us more about the matter when he sums up the debate. Speaking, however, as the consultant to the Society of Civil Servants, I am aware of considerable dissatisfaction in the society about the pressure under which its members have had to work. That pressure was caused by a need to rush through pension increases which were desperately urgent and for which no preparation had been made by the previous Conservative Government. Considerable burdens were placed on civil servants working in the Department.
Those burdens continue, for a variety of reasons. One is that we in the House legislate in this area in more and more complicated ways. No hon. Member—least of all I—would question the desirability of the new benefits, but the fact is that the more we rightly provide for specific needs, the greater the burden we place upon those whose job is to administer the benefits on which we have agreed. It is a difficult problem. The House needs to ensure that when it provides for a variety of benefits it also provides the manpower to administer them. I have heard in my own social security office about dissatisfaction over the load of work, and I am sure that other hon. Members can echo that dissatisfaction. Because the pressure of work is so great, officers are unfortunately often unable to give the personal attention that applicants require.
I hope that the manpower provision in the introduction to the Bill is sufficient. I have no means of judging whether it is, but the hon. Member for Kensington has raised doubts. I hope that we shall learn more about the position from my hon. Friend. I also wish

that we could ensure better provision for voting the necessary funds to provide staff to administer the benefits.
Despite whatever criticisms I have made, I am certain that this measure will be widely welcomed throughout the country for the degree to which it sticks to the commitment made by the Labour Party during the election campaign. It is an indication that despite our economic problems my right hon. and hon. Friends believe that we should be able to care for those who are less able to care for themselves.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. David Penhaligon: Liberals recognise that the Government have done something for many people who are at the bottom end of the income bracket. It is worth remembering today that we are discussing the position of people who could be most affected if inflation went absolutely wild as opposed to the partially wild state in which we now live.
I ask the Government to consider with some care the various indexes that are used when calculating the benefits of various groups. When prices are changing at the present rate, it is possible that the broad context approach that we now use is not satisfactory. There is little doubt that many of the people at the lower end of the income bracket have little room to fall before they reach genuine hardship.
During the debate I have been struck by the inclination to heap too much praise upon ourselves. As I understand it, in 1948 we paid a pension for a married couple of 30·5 per cent. of male manual earnings. In October 1973, after 25 years of progress, we had only maintained that percentage. It is true that at present the figure is somewhat better. During the last election many pensioners asked me "How can we get a reasonable rise?" I replied "What we really need for you pensioners is an election every six months". Of course, we have had two elections this year. I suspect that that in part is the reason for the better position of pensioners today.
According to my calculations—obviously they include some extrapolation—the percentage figure to which I was referring could drop to 31·5 per cent. by October 1975. These basic comments could be extended to many other benefits.


We must ask ourselves how much progress we have made in real terms over a lengthy period.
One of the promises made by the Government which was of the most value was that they would ensure—I believe they will—that pensions and other benefits would keep up with wages or prices. They went further and said that they would keep up with whatever was most beneficial. Who in this House could criticise them for that? But why will they set no target for their pension? It is easy to make a promise of a cash payment and the day will come when the promise is kept. The way we are going, someone will promise a married couple a pension of £50 a week. Let us make no mistake about that. That day is probably not so very far away. Why have the Government not set themselves a target percentage figure?
Liberals welcome the increased family allowances. I do not think that there is enough admission of guilt from Conservative Members. It is a staggering fact that not since 1968 has there been an increase in these benefits. The point has been made with some strength that there should be an allowance for the first child. Liberals are desperately keen to see family allowances extended to the first child.
It was decided this week to subsidise yet another food item—namely, tea. According to my calculations, one-third of the money that we now spend on food subsidies could provide some sort of allowance for the first child. The rest of the money could be spent on pensions. I suggest that that would be a great improvement on the present system. That would include the real poor. I cannot understand the delay in introducing an allowance for the first child. I am sure that there are many millions of women who would help to identify the children. I suspect that the problem is finding the money. I think that the Government have a chance to solve the problem that they have created for themselves with subsidies. If the Government decided to spend that money immediately on family allowances for the first child and on increasing pensions, the money would go where it was most needed.
I was impressed by the mention of petrol for the disabled. I genuinely believe that the Government are con-

cerned. It would not involve a large amount of money, and it is without a doubt a great problem for disabled people as we gradually approach the price of £1 a gallon. I now make a plea on behalf of my constituency. The Government have criticised local authorities—Tory-controlled authorities were stipulated, and with substantial justification—which will not give any relief to pensioners who use public services. I go along with that. I have spent some effort in my county in trying to get the authorities to do something to assist the pensioner in this direction, but there is a large category of pensioners who live in rural areas where there is no public transport to subsidise. Benefits are of no use to them.
The Secretary of State made passing reference to the Finer Report. It concerns about 1,500,000 people. We shall double the disregard and we are told that that should be hailed as a start to the implementation of the Finer proposals. I believe that that falls a long way short of the spirit of the report. Liberals will become increasingly critical if no further progress is made.
Local authorities have been told that they must not increase their expenditure by more than 2¾ per cent. in real terms. They have also been told with justification that they should do a far better job than they do now in implementing the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 What disturbs me is that until the Bill is given totally separate finance which can be identified, the cuts which I believe will come in local social services, will result in action such as that which was taken in December 1973. I believe that they will be ad hoc cuts with no relationships from one area to another. There are some areas that have done precious little about implementing the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act to date, and cuts that are made in such areas will be positively suicidal.
Liberals have always wanted a rationalised scheme. The idea of a tax credit system originated not from the Conservative Party but from the Liberal benches. According to the remarks of the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams), it seems that we have converted one party. Liberals now look forward to the day when they have converted


the rest of the House and when such a system will be implemented.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: In 1942 I collaborated in the production of a pamphlet in which the concept of a tax credit system was advocated. I do not think that that was the first occasion, but I can remember that very well.

Mr. Penhaligon: That is possible. It is one of the great things in party politics that it is possible to find a pamphlet to prove anything. The day that the tax credit system became Conservative Party policy was nowhere near 1942. In fact, it was many years after it became the Liberals' official policy.
It seems that the present system in the social services sphere is that a person will receive benefit if he collects the correct form, completes it at the correct time and in the correct manner and sends it to the correct department. The only hope that now exists of reducing bureaucracy and making many of the benefits automatic to the people to whom we all wish to see them go is to use the tax credit system. I recommend it to the Government for further thought.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) in his deliberations.
It was Confucius who said that when one takes one's first step on a journey of 1,000 miles, one is on the way. That is the spirit in which I accept the Bill. We have taken the first step, but my right hon. and hon. Friends will not expect me, as Vice-Chairman of the Disablement Income Group, to say "Yes" to everything they are doing. I shall make some complaints.
I am glad to see in his place my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State who is responsible for the disabled, because he and I agree that there are two ways in which we can help the disabled. In a strange way the hon. Member for Truro touched upon them. We can either do it by direct financial support, which is what the Bill is about, or we can provide the disabled with services. I believe that perhaps in some ways services can be as helpful as cash, because it has been proved conclusively, in a report

produced by Action for the Crippled Child—"Care with Dignity"—that domiciliary help is the most important.
Although I seem to be going a long way round my argument, I want to say that my greatest worry this winter will be the non-implementation of the "Alf Morris" Act—the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970—because of rate demands.
A survey, published in The Times and commissioned by Action for the Crippled Child, shows that 80 per cent. of the British people are prepared to accept an increase in the rates, provided that it is for disabled people. The other problem that we face, however, is that local authorities are already talking in terms of cutting their social service staff and facilities. Indeed, it is true to say that many of them would turn to my hon. Friend and say "Why do you want us to implement Sections 1 and 2 of the Act to identify the people and the needs when we do not have the wherewithall to support and sustain them?"
Therefore, if the Department of Health and Social Security cannot impress upon the Treasury and the Department of the Environment the necessity for a greater rate support grant, my right hon. Friends should look again at this Bill. If the rate support grant cannot be increased in such a way as to specify "This increase is directed towards you, as local authorities, provided you implement the Act, because these are the people in greatest overwhelming need", for a substantial number of people this will be a grim and grave winter because of the cutting back of social services.
What point am I getting at? It is that the disabled housewife and mother, for example, will find herself in very severe financial difficulties because of omissions from the Act. My hon. Friend has promised that at a later stage it will be brought up to date. But that may be too late. We are facing a severe winter. If we agree, as I think we do, that domiciliary help is the most vital and most important help, either we give more money deliberately to local authorities to implement the Act in full and give maximum help, support and sustenance to the disabled housewife and mother, or we put into this Bill a means whereby the disabled mother looking after her child shall be given help in financial terms.
It is hypocritical if we do not admit that for these people it has either got to be services or it has got to be cash. I do not care which way it is done, whether through the rate support grant or by the other method. But I want to see the Department of Health and Social Security insisting to the Treasury and the Department of the Environment that it wants more rate support grant specifically for the disabled or, in this Bill, enabling the disabled housewife and mother to get more money.
I know that this is a difficult proposition, but I am talking about those who are in greatest need. We have to give them maximum support. Yesterday my hon. Friend and I attended the premiere of a film, "The Employment of the Disabled", produced by the Spastics Society. It was made abundantly clear that whether or not these people can get gainful employment, whether they can, as it were, earn a living and hold their heads high with dignity, depends on the amount of support the employer or others are giving. We either have to change our attitude towards employment of the disabled—which could come within this Bill—and say that we will make up to the employer the money needed to keep disabled people in open employment, or we must augment the income of the disabled who are in work.
Part of the film illustrated the problem of a person staggering around a home with a cane and walking device, causing obvious damage to his house, his clothing, his carpet and his furniture. When such a person goes out to work, he not only needs a supplement to his earnings but, because of the extra cost of disability he also needs a tax-free allowance to allow him to make and keep his life as normal as possible.
I repeat that we have taken the first step forward. I urge my hon. Friend to turn this first step into a gigantic stride, because many people are waiting on us to make that great step forward.

6.48 p.m.

Mrs. Lynda Chalker: It would be presumptuous to try to emulate that speech by the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones), with every word of which I agree. I shall not seek to repeat it, but I want to make a few other comments about the disabled.
I welcome the general upgrading of benefits in the Bill, particularly because there is in it a small start towards the disablement income for which many of us are fighting. I have an interest to declare. I, too, am a member of the Disablement Income Group. All of us want to ensure that we give the maximum possible benefit to those people who are really in need. I am not saying that by the Bill the Government are not doing that, but we must view the Bill in the context of the total Government programme. If we are to devote what money we have to those in need, it means absolutely scrupulous housekeeping, and I think that we could improve the Government's housekeeping in a number of different ways.
First, I see the need for the administration of the social security system to be even more diligent in reviewing the existing very small proportion of fraudulent claims. They are a small proportion, but they exist. They bring disrespect to the whole system and cause a lot of worry and unnecessary trouble across the counter, because frequently we hear "Mr. X has got so much. He should not get it, and I should have it." The consequent long rigmarole takes up hours of the time of Members and officials. We must find some way of being more diligent in social security offices and in the administration as a whole.
This matter points to the fact that there has never been as great a need as there is now for a simplification of the system. Since I became interested in this subject—not in 1942, I regret to say, because I was just the subject of a maternity allowance then; I think we had those allowances then—I have been horrified by the number of alternative courses of action which it seems possible to take, because there are so many different benefits. If we are really determined to instil that feeling of security of which the Secretary of State spoke, we should also get rid of the feeling of mystery about the benefits and simplify the system.
It may be that a human mind cannot cope with this, but computers have taken on board many more difficult things than even the United Kingdom social security system. In their desire to achieve this feeling of security, the Government should try to do away with the mystery and


many of the inefficiencies which we all know to exist. They should have the courage to change the system, possibly to a tax credit system, if we can eventually persuade the Government that that is best.
The subject which is of most importance to me is that of the disabled. I am very pleased to see the courage and determination that disabled people have shown in their continuing fight for an income—and not just for an income, but for the ability to do things for themselves and earn their own living.
Although I welcome the £6·90 non-contributory pension, I wonder why it is only 60 per cent. Will it always be 60 per cent., or will the Government progress to a higher percentage? We should not regard disabled people as less worthy of a full pension than able-bodied people who can go on working longer or until they are widowed or something like that. Will this be increased?
I have further questions about the invalidity care allowance. The £6·90 is quoted as being the amount available for caring for a disabled relative who is in receipt of an attendance allowance. What happens if the person caring is not a relative of the person cared for? Without even consulting my records in my constituency, I can think of four such people who would not get that payment because they are not related to the disabled people whom they look after.
Another group of disabled who will not benefit from this payment are the disabled teenagers. Very often, although not working, they are of working age, or as they come up to the age at which they would normally pass out of secondary school, which they probably have not been attending, they are trying to study. They have a number of additional hurdles to cross in the way of special equipment or facilities. If these people are under 16 and at home and face additional education costs, have they any hope of getting some benefit from the Government to help with their studies?
The group of the disabled to whom I naturally feel the nearest are the disabled housewives. I am glad to hear that their benefits are coming, but in many ways their need is more urgent than that of pensioners themselves. In a household with a disabled wife, particularly if the

husband is also partially disabled—I have come across so many such families—that woman carries, often from a wheelchair which she is unable to get in and out of unaided, a far greater load than the Government currently seem to recognise. She faces a desperate plight in trying to care for often robust young children with whom she cannot adopt the normal motherly tactics.
If that woman employs a daily help, she has to pay 40p, 50p or 60p an hour, and in some areas she has to pay for the transport of that help on a daily basis. For her, it is not a temporary part-time help but a full-time job that she has to get someone else to help her to carry out. That could mean a cost of up to £20 a week if she tried to do it fully. Therefore, I wonder whether, in Committee, the Government will see just how desperate is the plight of the disabled housewife in carrying out normal duties.
The mobility allowance is also to come. I am a little concerned that two of the benefits that we are discussing are in the future. We know that they cannot possibly come next April, because the Secretary of State has told us so, but will they come the April after, or in April 1977? It is all a bit misty and I should be grateful for some clarification to clear away the blurred vision that I presently have about these benefits.
The mobility allowance is to be paid regardless of the individual's ability to drive. I hope that it will also disregard any question of whether a disabled person is without arms or legs. I know of several cases, which I shall shortly bring to the attention of the Minister, of drivers of adapted vehicles who can drive with their legs but who will not get the allowance because they have no arms. This seems extremely unfair.
We should also consider the cost of petrol in this respect. VAT at 12½ per cent. will hit the disabled driver harder than ever before. This is not the first time this year that I have mentioned this matter. Fuel costs for disabled drivers have quadrupled and the elderly disabled person who cannot use any of the bus passes or other public transport facilities is especially affected. We are told that the allowance is to be doubled from £5 to £10, which will go a small way to make up for the present petrol costs


faced by disabled people who cannot afford them. But will even that doubling be applicable to adapted cars as well as to invalid cars? That, too, is not clear.
Will the Ministers also look at the car allowances? They have stuck at their present rate, admittedly with the free road fund licence, at a time when repair costs have more than doubled and breakdowns seem to be more and more common for those who drive their own cars.
Whatever examples of need we consider—whether one-parent families or any others—we must get our priorities right. I hope that all concerned will stop patting themselves on the back for what they have done in the past. Despite what the hon. Member for Eccles said, I am not sure whether we have even taken one step. Rather, have we just started to lift one foot from the ground—and we are the lucky ones with feet to move.
In that respect, whether we do something for the mother who is on her own and trying to cope with children—because I, too, hope that family allowances will soon come for the first child—whether we do something for the first time ever for widows under 40, or whether we persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give greater tax relief for widows, all of these are only small measures. It makes those in need feel really aggrieved when they read of the likelihood of able-bodied people getting£30 a week, not in wages but in increased wages.
Cannot we wake up to the fact that there are people who, hard as they try for years on end, will never be able to achieve a wage of £30 a week in general employment? Those are the people for whom our caring society should be reorganising its Ministries and not everlastingly giving to the big and strong.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Bruce George: The Bill may not be epoch making, some might even call it modest, but without doubt it will be greeted wiht a great deal of enthusiasm by many of the less fortunate sections of our population.
At a time of economic crisis and budgets, we seem to be preoccupied with the state of business, which is a principal concern of government. But the Govern-

ment have other major concerns. The remedy of economic ills is not an end in itself. I wish to address myself to the problems of those people who, to my mind, have the foremost claim on the public treasury, namely, people at the bottom end of the income scale.
The Bill shows the Government's deep concern, even in the present economic situation, for the plight of people in what is known by some as classes 4 and 5. The hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) called the Secretary of State heartless. My right hon. Friend does not need me to defend her from the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps she is considered heartless by some people in his constituency, but if he were to wander around my constituency or similar constituencies he would find that people view her in a different light.
The Government's measures are commendable. The hon. Member for Kensington said that he could not discern any philosophy in this Bill or in other similar Government measures. I can discern a philosophy, and it is different from the philosophy of the Tory Party and Liberal Party when it comes to looking after the worst-off sections of our community.

Mrs. Jill Knight: Nonsense.

Mr. George: In the past, Governments have failed to recognise and devise a long-term strategy for eradicating poverty. Some Governments have introduced specific measures which have deliberately widened the gulf between the better-off and the less-well-off. In the Budgets of the late unlamented Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Anthony Barber, the bonanza days for the wealthy were created on the backs of other sections of the community.
Some Governments make decisions which temporarily improve the lot of the poor, but the impetus appears to be destroyed. They start by taking favourable measures and become complacent, and then the people who have benefited ultimately lose. It is encouraging to see a new approach being adopted. The present Government have increased old-age pensions, introduced food subsidies, increased benefits and made a number of tax changes. I wholeheartedly support their proposal for a new pensions plan. It must be galling for Tory hon. Members to


have to talk of what should be done. The present Government are taking the action, and in that respect I fully support them.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Was the hon. Gentleman in the House when his party voted against pensions as of right for the over-80s?

Mr. George: I became a Member in March. However, I remember many other measures introduced by the Conservative Government with which the hon. Gentleman was generally sympathetic but which were looked upon by others with considerable disfavour, particularly the increase in means-testing. If stones are to be thrown, they can be thrown in other directions.
The Labour Party said in Labour's Programme 1973:
We want to bring about a fundamental and irreversible shift in the balance of power and wealth in favour of working people and their families".
The Bill is but a small measure towards the achievement of that goal.
The causes of many sections of the community such as the elderly and the disabled have been championed today. One must add to them the causes of the long-term unemployed and the low paid. I add my support to those hon. Members who have championed the cause of one-parent families. Here I declare an interest. I am secretary of an all-party parliamentary group working on behalf of widows and one-parent families, and I am adviser—unpaid, I hasten to add—for the National Association of Widows. There is a great deal of interest among back benchers in the situation of widows and one-parent families.
The Finer Report showed that there were two-thirds of a million one-parent families with over 1 million dependent children. It also confirmed what we already knew—that the plight of one-parent families is generally significantly worse than that of two-parent families. We must concern ourselves with the problem of the children of such families. Some children are born into disadvantage, others are plunged into disadvantage by death or marriage breakdown. One of the first disadvantages can be traced back to birth. Few would deny that infant

mortality rates among various social groups differ remarkably. This is one cause of concern.
The education of children in these groups is often significantly worse than that of children in other sections of society. They may also come from areas in which housing is inadequate. These factors combine to produce considerable disadvantage for children. The Government are setting about remedying this situation.
One way of breaking the cycle of deprivation is for the Government speedily to implement many of the 230 recommendations of the Finer Report on one-parent families. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have been eagerly waiting for the Finer Report. One writer said, with some disdain, "Finer will be reporting any year now". We had waited since 1969 for the report to be published. Now that it has been published, we do not want to wait a long time for its implementation.
The Finer Report is a superb report, not only for future historians and sociologists but because it gives to the Government and Members of Parliament a programme for action. It reveals that one family in 10 with dependent children has only one parent. It paints a depressing picture of the widespread financial hardship and intense difficulty experienced by one-parent families.
The social policy for one-parent families must surely aim at providing a standard of living above the accepted minimum. But it involves much more. It involves more than increasing income and benefits. The Government must consider the Finer Report's recommendations which deal, amongst other things, with education, housing, the law, day care facilities and social work help. The report involves not simply the activities of the Department of Health and Social Security or even of other Government Departments such as the Department of Education and Science. A combined effort is required, and I hope that the Government are organising their action for implementing the Finer Report.
Modest signs can already be seen of a recognition of this major report. However, the Secretary of State has rejected, rightly in my view, the guaranteed maintenance allowance because it would


perpetuate the means-testing system, which I regard with some abhorrence.
Many of the Finer recommendations involve increased expenditure. In present circumstances it may not be feasible to implement the major financial recommendations. But many of the Finer recommendations involve little or no increase in expenditure. There is no excuse for not ticking off these recommendations one by one or a group at a time.
The Secretary of State rejects a guaranteed maintenance allowance and says that the Labour Party is looking more to the extension of the principle of family allowances. Family allowances were first paid in 1946. If one wished to be academic, one could go back to the Speenhamland system, a long time before then, to find the origin of allowances for children, and even for the first child. At the end of 1946 family allowances were paid to 4 million children. I was disappointed to hear from the Secretary of State that, although the Labour Party is committed to extending family allowances to the first child, she will be making a statement on its timing and other details of the scheme in due course. Although I recognise the difficulties, I hope that the commitment in previous Labour Party manifestos will soon be translated into reality. I realise that in extending family allowances to the first child there are problems of accommodation for printing and staff, but the Government could consult the relevant organisations outside Parliament, which I am sure would work hard to induce printers to speed up and help in finding accommodation and the requisite staff.
Family allowances are a direct means of help. More than 7 million children do not receive family allowances. The time of greatest financial strain is when the first child is born. A husband and wife may have two incomes and two mouths to feed. When the first child is born, the husband is providing the only income and there are three mouths to feed. The Government recognise the case for the payment of a family allowance for the first child, and we must recognise their financial difficulties. The Beveridge Report suggested that wages should be adequate to sustain the first child, but recent events have proved this to be manifestly untrue.
I support almost everything said by the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker). I go some way in supporting her remarks on vigilance in detecting abuse in social security, but vigilance should not be confined to the Department of Health and Social Security but should include the Inland Revenue, where there are more examples of abuse—

Mr. O'Malley: I should like to clear up a minor issue. My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) have both referred to abuse. The Fisher Committee, set up by the previous Government, came to the conclusion that the Department was using its resources sensibly and efficiently and was tackling the problem of abuse in a very effective manner. However, the Fisher Committee made recommendations, a substantial number of which were implemented by the previous administration, and those are still in operation. It is important that within the available manpower and financial resources the Department should keep tight control over abuse, which the hon. Lady recognised was confined to a small number of people. Action has already been taken to deal with this problem. It was begun under the Conservative Government and is continuing.

Mr. George: I concur with what my hon. Friend says. The Fisher Report gave little comfort to people who expected to find wide-scale abuse in the social security system. One can draw a contrast between abuse of the tax system and abuse of the social security system. It can be said of some people who abuse the social security system that they are struggling with great economic difficulties. It is hard for some of us here to realise how hard it is to live on an income which is a fraction of that earned by hon. Members.
I congratulate the Government on the upratings and the innovations in the Bill, and also on the measures they have taken in the last eight or nine months. These are early days yet. I hope that the impetus we have created will not be lost. We must remember that the poor do not have a strong lobby. The sections of the community of whom we are speaking cannot mount large battalions and it is, therefore. important for us to represent here to the best of our ability the people who


are unable to fight adequately for themselves.
We have all been told to pull together to fight the menace of inflation. To combat inflation may be the major task facing the Government, but let us not forget that we have other objectives to achieve as well, and one of the supreme objectives is the eradication of poverty. This Bill and other measures taken by the Government are a step in that direction.

7.17 p.m.

Mr. Robert Boscawen: I assure the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) that the poor have a strong lobby on both sides of the House. I take a humble view of what all parties have done in the past 25 years towards helping them, but we have tried and we shall continue to try. People outside are led to take a more cynical view of the House of Commans when one party, one hon. Member or a group of hon. Members, claims to do more for this group of people than do others. During the time I have been in the House of Commons, admittedly not too many years, I have taken part in almost every debate on this subject and I have found that hon. Members on both sides of the House care deeply about these matters.
Intervening on the question of abuse the Minister of State wanted to nail that assertion straight away, and I am sure that his answer was correct. It was the answer that was given by his predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean). It is widely believed that there is abuse, and a great deal more publicity and more statements on the lines of the Minister's statement are needed to persuade people that there is not. We all had experience in the election campaign of people telling us that something must be done about such and such a person who was abusing the social security services. One sometimes has to try until one is blue in the face to persuade people that that is not so. We all have a job to do in our own constituencies to persuade people that there is no wide-scale abuse, as is sometimes thought.
The Bill brings in important changes which I welcome. I regret the short period between publication of the Bill and Second Reading. There has not been

sufficient time to allow much comment from outside on the merits of the proposals. I wish that there had been more time, but I recognise that the Government are in a tight spot in trying to get the benefits through by next year.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) that the Bill provides for the expenditure of a large sum of money on retirement benefits and short-term benefits and that the proportionate increases as between the two have not been fully explained. The Secretary of State for Social Services said that the proposals would involve a 16 per cent. increase in long-term benefits and a 14 per cent. increase in short-term benefits, but a slight variation in those percentages involves a very large sum of money.
We should look more carefully at the difference between the two benefits. I should like to see the Government save some of the money and spend it on some of the more needy groups. We are rather browning the target and not picking out specific groups for help, and I mainly refer to groups in greatest need.
I turn to the question of the new proposals as they affect old people and the idea of helping those who have not been able to establish a sufficient contribution record. I have in mind the category of people who are so severely disabled, mentally and physically, that they can do little or no work. Further thought should be given to this aspect of the matter.
I regard the Bill as a modest measure, but I agree that at least it is a start. We Conservatives introduced proposals in similar words, but I still regard the present measure as too modest. It is certainly a long way from our target of a disability income and leaves out categories of deserving people. Those categories comprise children under 16, at the other end of the scale people over 65 who already receive some invalidity pension, and also people who receive industrial injury benefit—but, in my view, not enough benefit—and other disablement groups. Those people are left totally outside any comprehensive disability plan.
One category which to a great extent is obviously missed from the proposals is that of the disabled married woman who is too badly disabled to look after her


home and family. I am sure the House will agree that it is in those homes that the need is greatest. When one visits such homes one soon realises that they involve categories of people whom the Government should have at the forefront of their minds. I am disappointed that those groups of people will have to wait, although I am glad to hear that they will be covered later in the present Session rather than in the next parliamentary Session. I am glad that the Government intend to do something for that group of people, but I am sorry they will have to wait even through the winter.
As I understand the situation, those who receive non-contributory invalidity pension will nearly all be on long-term means-tested supplemenary benefit. Many are long-stay cases in mental hospitals. The latest figure I have been able to obtain shows that there are 306,000 people in this category.
I was a little shaken to read on page iv, paragraph 15, of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum the following comment:
The gross cost of the proposed noncontributory invalidity pension and invalid care allowance will be about £70 million and £6 million respectively in the first full year.
In effect, what this means is that the net cost to the Exchequer will be only £11 million. I hope that I have underestimated that figure, but are the Government seeking by the Bill to help those people who are mentally handicapped to the tune of only £11 million? If that is so, it is most disappointing. When one remembers how quickly and rightly the Government leapt to the aid of the thalidomide families one surely must regard a sum of £11 million for 300,000 people as a small sum indeed. This is another area to which I should like to see money diverted.
I should like the Minister to deal with one matter in reply. Is the whole of the non-contributory invalidity pension to be discounted for special benefit? I believe that the whole amount should be disregarded. This suggestion was contained in the Conservative proposals made earlier in the year and would cost a great deal more. Our proposals, which included married women, would have cost about £94 million, less a sum of £10 million to £20 million—we were not

able to estimate the exact amount—in relation to the reduction in hospital costs and so on. Perhaps we could be told whether this is to be disregarded in the supplementary benefit.
A large number of the 300,000 people in the category to which I have referred will be receiving attendance allowance. Is that allowance to be reduced to the extent of a non-contributory invalidity pension? I hope not, because the two schemes are widely different and have a different purpose. I hope that we shall be given a ministerial answer on this point because the allowance should be allowed to continue. Only a small number of people are involved, and the new non-contributory invalidity pension will still leave the vast majority of individuals on long-term supplementary benefit.
I should like to put in a plea for the young persons who can never work and who have no chance of ever being able to work when they reach the adult age of 16. What is to happen to them? Are they to wait the full six months before they receive the new invalidity pension, or will they have to go on supplementary benefit, or will there be some means of establishing the fact that they are severely handicapped, mentally or physically, so that they may draw the new benefits straight away when they become of age? I think that any help to that group of people would add to their dignity.

Mr. Kenneth Lomas: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the number of children who have suffered vaccine damage in the United Kingdom, and of the fact that Governments of whatever party have not been able to estimate the exact numbers of these children. Does he not agree that those children and their families are just as deserving of compensation as are the thalidomide children? Is not this a subject that should be considered on an all-party basis, and should we not try to do something about the important group of people to which I refer?

Mr. Boscawen: I accept that. I have such a case in my constituency. I hope that the individual concerned will fall into one of these categories.
However, it appears that a child under the age of 16 in this situation will not get anything under the Bill. In some


future legislation, I hope that he will. If he is just over the age of 16 he will be in the position that I was discussing just now. I hope that there will not be any hiatus when a child reaches the age of 16 and is obviously incapable ever of working. He should get this benefit immediately, as of right. There should be no undignified delay resulting in his having to go on short-term supplementary benefit till he qualifies for long-term benefit or for this benefit.
What about the tests of eligibility for this new benefit? Obviously, there has to be more than an adequate contributions record. Clause 6(6) is very brief and points only to the fact that regulations will be drawn up subsequently. The regulations will be exceptionally important. Upon them will depend whether this measure is a humane one or one likely to lead to an immense amount of dissatisfaction and disappointment. I hope that in Committee we shall be able to discuss regulations concerning eligibility for this new long-term benefit.
In the same breath I ask whether there is to be any dividing line between those who qualify for full benefit and those who get nothing. As the Bill is drafted it seems to me that a person gets either full benefit or nothing at all. I feel that there should be some half-way house. Possibly those with an over 85 per cent. assessment should get a higher rate and those below that a lower rate. This is a matter that we shall want to examine at some later stage.
What is the position about the earnings rule in relation to this new non-contributory invalidity pension? In my view, once given, there should be no earnings rule at all. The pensioner should be able to earn. It is vitally important that disabled people who are able to get back to work of some kind are allowed and encouraged to do so. This is a very important consideration, and I am opposed strongly to the introduction of an earnings rule on the new non-contributory invalidity pension. In any event, it would not cost very much to have no earnings rule. There cannot be many disabled people in this position. The Amelia Harris survey shows that about 4,000 very severely disabled people went back to work. I think that it would be far better to leave out the earnings rule, especially for these cate-

gories of people. I might add that I am as anxious as anyone else to see the earning rule for the general retirement pension phased out as quickly as possible as well.
There is one gap in the non-contributory invalidity pension to which attention should be given. No special consideration is given to the clothing requirements of recipients of the pension. We all know that severely disabled people experience considerable wear and tear on their clothing and would find of great assistance a provision for it similar to that already given to war pensioners. Very often clothing is a very expensive item in the budget of a severely handicapped individual, and it would be a good idea to include some element in this new pension to cover a special clothing allowance.
Having said all that, and having been rather critical of the Bill, I feel that it is a milestone along the road to doing something for people who have for so long been neglected. I am disappointed that we have not gone further and faster. I am certain that the Under-Secretary of State with special responsibility for disabled people is equally disappointed that present-day economic conditions are such that we cannot move further and faster. However, the Bill is a step in the right direction. It is a painful inch, but we are going somewhere. I hope to see this sort of progress continue throughout this Parliament, in order to give a better life and more stable and satisfactory home surroundings to this group of hitherto much neglected people.

7.36 p.m.

Mr. George Rodgers: The hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) has spoken a great deal of common sense. The debate has established that this is an area of common ground and that there is concern on both sides of the House. There is deep appreciation in this House, which extends throughout the country, for the accomplishments in the proposals put forward in this Bill. I suspect that they have not been easy to achieve in the present economic climate and that there has been many a fierce battle to secure the resources which have come the way of the Department. Many of us are grateful that here at least we have Ministers who are not placid by nature and who are prepared to do battle. They have


demonstrated that even in hard times it is possible to make provision for those in great and often desperate need.
I welcome the two additional benefits provided in Clauses 6 and 7. The noncontributory invalidity pension will assist many people who have slipped through the net of welfare provision.
I have in mind a constituent of mine. He is a married man with two young children who for several years has been completely disabled after losing both his legs. He receives no social security benefit at all. His wife is a nurse. She has to work continual night shifts to maintain the family. During daylight hours, she has to attend to her husband, deal with decorating and gardening and look after her two young children. When I first entered this House, it seemed to me incredible that such a situation could exist. I can recognise the enormous difference that this new benefit will make to that family. It will add to the quality of their lives and remind them that they are not entirely forgotten. The impact of this payment will have a heartening effect and will lighten what must be an almost unbearable load. That burden is brought about not through villainy and indolence but by chance and circumstance. It is incredible that such families should exist today.
Similar points can be made about the invalid care allowance. Many lasses and the occasional lads have sacrificed career and prospects of marriage to demonstrate their devotion to handicapped relatives. The invalid care allowance will bring a gleam of light to what must be the very drab lives particularly of those who have chosen, because of their own inherent decency, to become trapped into an existence of unpaid nurse and companion and have so long appeared to be neglected and forgotten. The allowance will be warmly welcomed by those people who lead lives of continual quiet despair and misery.
The broad provision for improved State pensions is a further indication that the welfare of the elderly is in very good hands. There was a time when it was claimed that pensioners had no big battalions, no industrial power, and no allies in the City to plead their cause. Times have changed. Our pensioners now have a strong lobby in the Government. The trade unions—particularly the

Transport and General Workers' Union with Jack Jones as its leader—have taken up the cudgels on behalf of pensioners with great effect. The Pensioners' Federation is very powerful.
I think that we all have a vested interest in reaching old age. I look to the time when pensioners' organisations are prepared to lend their weight in other directions, because there are many minority groups worse off now than the ordinary pensioner. I am thinking of the large number of low-income families, the mentally handicapped, and one-parent families.
Much remains to be done. I accept that it is political cowardice to will the ends without the means, but many hon. Members, particularly on this side of the House, insist that there is still a great superfluity of wealth in this country which can be utilised for better purposes.
I accept that this is not a matter for debate today. Therefore, I will conclude my brief contribution by thanking and congratulating my right hon. Friend and inevitably by reminding her that there is still a long grinding battle ahead before we can say that the victory over poverty is finally won.

7.43 p.m.

Mrs. Jill Knight.: This evening hon. Members have heaped pearls of wisdom and diamonds of advice on the Secretary of State on how she may best improve the Bill. It is to be hoped that her gratitude will excel her attendance record in this debate. I earnestly hope that the right hon. Lady will read the suggestions which are made in the debate. Of course, she has a stalwart standby in the person of the Minister of State, who I hope will listen carefully to what is said and perhaps give us some hope that our suggestions may be adopted.
I agree with the sympathy expressed by the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Rodgers) to the specific cases he outlined. They underline again how often the Inland Revenue could be brought in to improve the lot of people who have been disadvantaged. I am thinking particularly of the woman whose husband has been struck down with a disabling disease and who is unable to get assistance from the Inland Revenue for help in the house which she must have if she is to go out


to work to support her family. If a man whose wife is disabled still goes out to work to support the family, he is entitled to tax relief towards a home help.
Would it not be a good idea for payment of the new family allowances to be dependent on a child's undergoing regular medical examination? Such a law was passed in France in 1970. I am assured that already the French authorities know that this move will drastically reduce the amount of childhood illness and disability in the next generation.

Mr. O'Malley: I am listening to the hon. Lady with interest. My first reaction—of course, I will consider anything that she suggests—is that whatever we consider must be consistent with the qualified medical manpower that is available. I should have thought that the general practitioners and the hospital system, superimposed on which is the school medical system, would, if properly administered and fully manned, meet the hon. Lady's demands.

Mrs. Knight: I may have allowed the Minister to intervene prematurely. Of course, he is right. Standard school medical examinations are undergone by all children at school. Yet the most formative years of a child's life are from birth to five years of age. I find that the majority of mothers—even good mothers—do not present their children for regular medical checks after the age of two. Had there not been that experiment in France and such a successful outcome to it, I should not be commending it to the Minister. However, I beg him to consider what we now know about the French experiment.
Research in France shows that parents often do not recognise when infants are in need of medical attention. Yet early diagnosis is absolutely vital to the treatment and prevention of many congenital childhood handicaps. I am thinking of deafness and mental subnormality which, surprisingly enough, cannot always be detected.

Mr. Kenneth Lomas: Vaccine.

Mrs. Knight: Vaccine as well. I am talking of damage to children up to the

age of five and of the need to locate the trouble early so that it can be treated and checked. Locomotor handicap and faulty growth of any kind, if it can be detected and treated early enough, has a much better chance of being curbed.
The French law is based on the concept of the legal rights of the child. I sometimes think that we in this country do not take enough notice of the legal rights of children. I realise that the whole question of the legal rights of children and fostering in particular, is being considered in other legislation, but until now we have not given sufficient attention to it. This is another instance where the child has a right which we could recognise more by saying to parents "We will pay you these increased benefits, but only on the basis that you can show that you have taken your child to the clinic for regular checks".
Hon. Members will quickly appreciate that there is a point here on the battered baby syndrome. I am sure that those who know the details of the numbers of children who today come into the category of battered babies recognise that it might be a good idea to have regular checks.

Mr. Lomas: I am charmed by the hon. Lady's charisma. No doubt it helps her to win at elections. But what does she mean when she refers to the age of a child? What age is she talking about?

Mrs. Knight: I am sorry if I have not made it clear; I thought I had. I am talking about the age group from birth until five years of age. After five years of age a child is regularly examined at school. In the group from birth until the age of five there is a great deal of medical evidence which could be detected if the child had regular medical checks. I shall not labour the point about battered babies even though it is extremely important.
If a mother knew that receipt of child allowance was dependent, as is now the case in France, on having submitted her child for regular medical checks, I do not think that the outcome would be any different from the French experience. It would be a good idea to do that.
I turn now to social security benefits. The Bill would be much better if it


clearly laid down—I know that the Government are unlikely to agree to this—that strikers would not receive social security benefits but that their needs must be taken care of instead by the strike fund of the union which had called the strike. It would be a good thing if hon. Members understood and appreciated the depth of feeling outside the House at the fact that persons acting against society can draw funds from society for so doing.
I wish to say a further word about the abuses of the social security system—

Mr. Lomas: What did the hon. Lady's party do about that?

Mrs. Knight: I am not making a party point on this. I am saying what I think ought to be done in the Bill and what I think would improve the Bill. I would have thought that that is what parliamentary debates are all about.
When we were dealing with the question of abuses, the Minister rose to point out that it had been accepted by his predecessor as well as himself that the resources of his Department were being used sensibly and efficiently and that there was tight control over them. He said that action had already been taken to deal with social security abuses.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) said that it is widely believed that such abuses exist. The Minister feels that a great deal has already been done to tighten up control of abuses and my hon. Friend feels that, whatever is done, it is widely believed—though possibly wrongly—that the abuses exist. He said that we should help the truth to emerge.
Let us therefore examine the case of John James Barrow, of 41 Hornsey Road, Kingstanding, Birmingham. I assure the Minister that John James Barrow is no unfortunate piece of flotsam on the tide of life and that no tears need be shed for him in any quarter of the House. His occupation is that of a crane driver and his national insurance number is YA 96 31 61 B. The point about John James Barrow is that he is a modern equivalent of the old wartime man who never was.
John James Barrow, like Venus, sprang into existence fully formed, but unlike Venus he appeared five minutes before a Birmingham Evening Mail reporter entered an employment exchange in

Birmingham. John James Barrow did not appear a long time ago. It is not an old story. It was reported in the newspaper in September.
I am talking about John James Barrow to indicate that whatever the Minister feels about how efficient and how tight the controls are and whatever my hon. Friend feels, John James Barrow has been reported on in the Press and he has made many people very annoyed. Having invented this identity, it took the reporter concerned 90 minutes to get the necessary papers to establish himself as John James Barrow, and for a few additional lies he found that he was to get£80 in benefits. I know the Minister will agree that this is the sort of case that greatly annoys the public.

Mr. Lomas: Very few.

Mrs. Knight: Whether there are many John James Barrows or whether he is alone I do not pretend to say, but even one John James Barrow is one too many, and he ought to be curbed. It is not only a question of the money he can get through social security benefits. Every penny which goes to a scrounger is one penny less for a deserving case.

Mr. Lomas: I appreciate the hon. Lady's point. There are between 2 and 3 per cent. of the population who are taking us for a ride. I accept that—

Mrs. Knight: rose—

Mr. Lomas: Will the hon. Lady tell me how many civil servants would be required in order to try to curb, the 1, 2 or 2½per cent. who abuse the system?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. When the hon. Lady rose again, it meant that she wished to resume her speech and that she was not prepared to let the hon. Gentleman continue with his intervention.

Mrs. Knight: Indeed, the hon. Lady has given the hon. Gentleman as much time as he is going to get.
If we say that we need not trouble about John James Barrow and his like and that to curb them would mean employing more workers, detectives and the rest, that would be self-defeating. Does not the hon. Gentleman see that every time we say such a thing we give encouragement for more and more John


James Barrows? We have to be as certain as we can that John James Barrow is squeezed out of existence as quickly as he came into existence.
I appreciate completely the point that staffs in social security offices are extremely overworked and that it is impossible in present circumstances to send them to check on all addresses. Nevertheless, that is not my problem. My duty as a Member of Parliament is to come to this place and say what outrages my constituents and residents in my city—and that is what John James Barrow does.

Mr. Lomas: But 99·9 per cent. do not.

Mrs. Knight: It is not only a question of money. In the sort of case I have been describing, the false papers would, for instance, help a crook to get through most police checks. It would also give an identity to go with a stolen cheque book. The social security cheat can get not only supplementary benefit but money for rent arrears, possibly unemployment pay, and free travel on British Railways if he is in another town and wants to travel back home. If he is lucky he might also get a full set of national insurance cards. It might be possible to catch up with him, but by that time he will have gone off and started cheating another department.
It is simply no use saying that it is too bad and we must let it go on. We cannot let it go on. We must recognise the dangers. Every time we increase the rates of social security benefit, we make it more of a bait to those who cheat.
I am concerned not only about the question of the money but also about the identification provided by the papers that are supplied.

Mr. O'Malley: I do not recall having any knowledge of the case to which the hon. Lady has referred. Has she raised this case in correspondence with the Secretary of State, myself or the Under-Secretaries?

Mrs. Knight: I have raised it in the Chamber but not in so much detail. I hardly think that that has a very great deal to do with it. I am describing how we ought to seek to improve the Bill. Nothing is so good that it cannot be im-

proved. I have no wish to prolong my speech—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: rose—

Mrs. Knight: I will not give way. I have already given way too often. The cheats exist, and they not only get money but they get identification papers too.
I support most strongly what has been said about the need to do something for the disabled housewife. The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) have raised this point. We listened carefully to what the Secretary of State said in opening the debate. She hinted at some point that there was to be help for the disabled housewife. I would have thought that this debate has shown that there is strong support for the cause of the disabled housewife in every part of the House.

Mr. Lomas: Write a letter.

Mrs. Knight: I rose to make a speech, not to write a letter, and I have every intention of making that speech. The plight of the disabled housewife is particularly sad. If she has children at school, has started work and is then struck down by a disabling disease, words cannot sufficiently convey what that means to that woman. Not only is she unable to help her husband and family with the work in the house but she cannot help to bring in any money. Further, the family must pay out more money for her. She is in an appalling position. I know of no worse case than the disabled housewife, and I hope that the right hon. Lady will be as good as her word and do something soon for that sad lady.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I wanted to ask the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) a question but she refused to give way to me. I want to get this on the record. I agreee with her that any abuse of the social services is wrong. I was glad that my hon. Friend the Minister of State rose to ask whether the hon. Lady had raised this matter at ministerial level with any of the relevant Ministers. She replied that she had not written to any Ministers but had raised it in the House.
I am a diligent attender in this House. I cannot recall hearing this case and I cannot recollect having read of it. I do not doubt that the hon. Lady raised it but no doubt she raised it before last February. I have studied HANSARD since last February and I cannot recall the hon. Lady raising the subject during the period of office of the present Government.

Mrs. Knight: rose

Mr. Lewis: I thought the hon. Lady would want me to give way. She would not give way to me. I suggest, when my hon. Friend looks it up, that he will find that this was due to maladministration on the part of the previous Tory Government.

Mrs. Knight: rose—

Mr. Lewis: I am sorry. The hon. Lady would not give way. I will not give way. She can perhaps raise it again—

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a normal courtesy of the House that, if a personal attack is made on an hon. Member, that hon. Member should have an opportunity to reply?

Mr. Lewis: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Meyer Galpern): Order. Let me deal with one point of order at a time. Whether the hon. Member gives way is entirely a matter for him. I would say to the hon. Member, that so far, from what I have heard of his speech, I doubt whether it is related to the Bill. That is my problem.

Mr. Lewis: You were not in the Chair at the time when the hon. Lady made a speech which was relevant to the Bill. It must have been relevant—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I observed the point at which the hon. Member came into the Chamber, which was when the hon. Lady was speaking.

Mr. Lewis: I heard the hon. Lady's references to this and I heard my hon. Friend ask her whether she had written to him or to any other Minister. The hon. Lady was allowed to raise this matter by the previous occupant of the Chair so it must have been in order. The hon. 
Lady said that she had not raised it with any of the Ministers but had raised the matter on the Floor of the House. I wanted to ask her a simple question, namely, whether she did so during the period of office of this Government or during the period of office of the Tory Government. But the hon. Lady would not give way and she must realise that I am doing exactly the same as she has done. She must remain seated and must not keep interrupting. Had she given way to me, I would have given way to her. She has made her speech and now must wait and see. No doubt it will be in HANSARD and I can read it there.

8.6 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I hesitate to begin my speech at the point at which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) has ended. She has raised an important matter about fraud and the misuse of the system, to which I will return later.
Nothing ought to remind the House more of the desperate position of pensioners and others living on benefits in these highly inflationary times than the fact that this type of Bill is coming before the House with ever-increasing frequency. We are engaged in a process—and this affects a number of areas of policy—of learning to live with inflation.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) was quite right, when opening the debate, to remind us, and particularly Labour Members, that we ought not to get too complacent about the fact that we are adjusting to inflationary times and learning to live with inflation.
The overwhelming purpose of the Bill—it takes up by far the bulk of the expenditure—is to keep up with the ever-soaring increase in wages and prices. The large increase in benefits, in which we all take pleasure because of the need for them in these circumstances, and which the Secretary of State took pride in announcing, is entirely due to the huge rises in wages and prices which have taken place since our last uprating Bill not many months ago. While we all regard these increases as timely because of the hard-pressed position of pensioners and others, the Government and particularly the Secretary of State, are in some


way taking credit indirectly for the rate of inflation.
It was not good enough for the right hon. Lady to emphasise that this is the second largest increase ever introduced into the House and to talk about raising benefits 50 per cent. in cash terms. That is largely determined by the fact that the Government are presiding over an accelerating rate of inflation. We could reach the absurdity, Heaven forbid, if this country goes over the brink and we are having to weigh out benefits to pensioners and others because it takes too long to count out the money, of the Secretary of State coming to the House talking about ever bigger percentages and ever more frequent uprating Bills showing how distinguished is the effort she is making in this area. Let us get back to the real gravity of the situation. This was underlined first in the Secretary of State's statement to the House, when she indicated that over the nine-month period which she was using for the purpose of comparison between her two upratings there had been a 15½ per cent. increase in earnings in the country and a 12½per cent increase in prices. One of our difficulties in discussing the Bill, and in trying to work out just how far we have gone in helping, is that all of us have no idea what those rates might have accelerated to by December 1975, which is the date by which the next review can possibly come into force. In fact, it is rather indicative that the Government, in revising short-term benefits in the Bill, have put them up by rather more than the increase in prices which they were using and to which they had statutorily bound themselves—14 per cent. It is our belief that they are expecting a more rapid rate of inflation still in the months ahead.

Mr. O'Malley: The hon. Gentleman, as did his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), is making too much of the margin which is at the top of the movement in the price index. If he looks at the practice of the Conservative Party when it was in Government, he will see that similar margins were put into these up-ratings. Therefore, we are following a pattern for which there is a precedent.

Mr. Clarke: I accept that, and certainly we on the Opposition side of the House are not criticising the prudence of the Government for leaving in such a margin in these circumstances. As my right hon. and learned Friend made clear, all the later indications are that it is only too right to anticipate an acceleration in the rate of price increases during the period for which this review will be payable. But this review will be payable up until December 1975. In debating it, hon. Members ought to bear in mind that what that means is that we have no idea what the real value, in constant terms, of these benefits will be through the time when pensioners and other beneficiaries will have to live on them. Pensioners will be particularly dependent in the autumn of next year on the rates of benefit which we are now declaring. The Government have a heavy responsibility to ensure that by then the rate of inflation has not made the achievements of which they are so proud in this Bill look rather puny and very ineffective in protecting the poorest in our society.
It is because we all fear the worst in these inflationary times that the Conservative Party believes that the Government should commit themselves to six-monthly reviews, to which we committed ourselves in two General Election campaigns this year. The Government and the Secretary of State keep asserting that they will stick to the 12-monthly review period as soon as it is practicable, but they are slowly being driven by circumstances to speed up the rate of uprating Bills in practice.
The Secretary of State made a great deal of the administrative problems and the practical problems. She said that we were overlooking them in committing ourselves to a six-monthly review. But no one is overlooking them. We all know that the present Secretary of State has rather specialised so far—certainly during her early months in office—in underrating them herself, and this has caused great difficulties in the Department. I shall return later to the administrative expertise and the ability of Ministers to organise the resources of the Department.
The Secretary of State's explanation was based entirely on a difficulty that she had had in trying to shorten the period between reviews being carried out and


the benefits coming into payment. We well remember how her attempts to shorten that period, in the aftermath of one election and the preparation for the next in July, led to near chaos at one stage in the administration of the national insurance system.
But that is not what we are talking about. A regular system of six-monthly reviews allows the time necessary to get supplementary benefits into payment. They take about 20 weeks to effect. A regular system of six-monthly reviews is believed necessary by the Conservative Party. This certainly could have been achieved. It is unfortunate that the Government are being driven towards it in practice while professing all the time that it was only an electoral gimmick proposed by the Conservatives.
I turn to the Bill with that sombre background of fears of inflation damaging the level of benefits and the question how adequately the Government are speeding up the machinery to cope with that.
Certainly the Bill contains some very welcome features. We have no intention of overlooking them. At this stage and in Committee we shall give praise where it is due.
First, the Government are to be congratulated on increasing family allowances. I accept that we on the Opposition side of the House were not able to do so when in Government, though we introduced family income supplement, and that was a very substantial advance. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) has always urged an increase in family allowances. He congratulated the Government. It is clearly an acceptable change at present. We should all like to know—when in office we were working towards it—when the system will be extended to cover the first child with the child credits that have been promised by the present Government. At least that is one feature of our tax credit scheme which the Government have committed themselves to continue.
But I echo the words of an hon. Member opposite who said that during the passage of the Bill, perhaps even during the Minister's reply, we need some more precision about when the new allowance for the first child will come into payment. Perhaps that will give the Minister

of State the opportunity of telling us more of the administrative problems which are slowing up some of the progress in his Department, but he may like to give an indication of when the new allowance is to be made payable.
Another welcome feature is the fact that what are known as the disregards for supplementary benefit are, at long last, being raised. Successive Governments must accept joint responsibility for the fact that in the pressing need to try to revise other benefits, the disregards have been left unchanged since October 1966. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) dealt with the important effect of raising the disregards of capital on elderly people living in owner-occupier houses. He chose a very pertinent case. These are being raised. So also is the disregard of income, which has stayed at £2 since November 1966. The raising of that sum to £4 is probably bringing it only to the equivalent purchasing value in 1966. The last figure that I could find was given in a reply to a Question of mine on 29th July. Apparently the equivalent figure would have been £3½51 in mid-June 1974, but I suspect that it is pretty well back to its former purchasing power.
I suspect, however, that in the neglect of the disregard over the last eight years, while it may now be going back to a position of being roughly the same as it was in 1966, the ratio of the level of disregards to the average weekly earnings of male industrial workers is still somewhat less than it was in 1966. In November 1966, when the £2 level which has operated since then was first fixed, £2 represented 9·9 per cent. of an average male industrial worker's earnings. It was very much less than that mid-way through this year. I very much suspect that a sum of £4 is nowhere near back to that very pertinent level.
These disregards are exceedingly important. It is time, whichever party is in power, that the Government got on with the job of revising them. As the Finer Committee pointed out, this matter is extremely important for one-parent families. It has an important bearing on the problem of the poverty trap. The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) and other hon. Members raised both of those matters in connection with disregards. Disregards are still not back to


where they ought to be in comparison with the average weekly earnings of male industrial workers.
Another matter which we should examine in Committee is the fact that since 1966 we have altered our programme in a number of ways. All that the Government have done is to double the cash value to the right flat-rate level of income. That still has a sharp effect on anyone qualifying for supplementary benefit. It has a quite disincentive effect on someone with a small income coming in if he begins to lose supplementary benefit drastically thereafter. The Minister should seriously consider whether that particular style of disregard is out of date.
The Government should look at a sliding scale for these disregards, in the way in which a sliding scale is now the practice for the earnings rule for retirement pensioners. This important matter of the poverty trap, or the poverty surtax, has a great effect and it should be seriously re-examined.
The other substantial new feature of the Bill which will take up much of our time in Committee and which rightly took up a great deal of time in this debate is the beginning of what the Disability Income Group would wish to call disability income, namely, the non-contributory invalidity pension, which we are all glad the Government are able to bring forward in the Bill. The Government have taken on our statutory obligation to bring proposals forward. Now they are putting the first steps into legislative form.
This matter was referred to in particular by the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) and by my hon. Friends the Members for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) and for Wells (Mr. Boscawen), who raised important points about the disability income scheme. Obviously all those hon. Members started from the common basis of having a genuine concern for this neglected sector of our society. We trust that we shall be able to carry on the substantial work which has been done by the all-party group in the House which is interested in the welfare of the disabled and begin to introduce a proper, workable disability income

scheme which will make a significant difference to the plight of the disabled.
We are anxious that the Government, having taken over our statutory obligation to introduce such a provision, will not make a botched job of it and will not create for themselves difficulties in the next two years. There are substantial criticisms to be made, and my hon. Friends have already made them. We have doubts whether in practice the Government's administrative competence will match the good intentions which were stated by the Secretary of State.
I suspect that one of the things that can be said of our social security debates is that practically every participant is a paid-up and probably a practising member of DIG, which is one of the leading pressure groups for the disabled. Most people who have been involved in the campaign for the disabled, certainly those on this side, rather expected that the beginning would be made with the disabled housewife, because her position and that of the married woman at home is particularly severe. She is totally neglected at present. The problems of this section of disabled, as the hon. Member for Eccles pointed out in a strong speech, are particluarly acute at present, and disabled housewives seemed a suitable group to start with.
I am very concerned that one of the extraordinary features of the Government's scheme and the way in which they seem to be phasing it in at present is that in their beginnings they are excluding the disabled housewife. The invalidity pension proposals in the Bill exclude married women and therefore, as it inevtably must, women cohabiting outside marriage.
This has some rather extraordinary effects which I am sure that the Government did not intend and which I fear reflect upon their administration competence to implement their intentions. It would seem from the right hon. Lady's earlier remarks that there is to be an interval between bringing in this invalidity pension on these terms and bringing in whatever the Government have in mind for disabled housewives when they are able to publish their proposals. I have gained the impression from Answers to Questions given by the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe


(Mr. Morris) that the interval between these proposals for single women coming into effect and the coming into effect of any proposals for disabled housewives may be as long as two years.
If that is so, quite apart from the disappointment which will be felt throughout the House at the realisation that disabled housewives have somehow gone towards the back of the queue of the disabled rather than being at the forefront, the Government have produced a rather absurd position and one which the Standing Committee will be reluctant to allow to go forward. The absurd position that occurs to me is that a single woman, under the terms of the Bill, will receive the benefit as of right, but that benefit will cease should she decide to marry or to start cohabiting with her boy friend. For a new benefit of this kind this is obviously an absurdity which the Government should never have intended. I trust it is one which they will not press the House and the Committee to accept in that unaltered form.
As I said in a somewhat tongue-in-cheek fashion to the right hon. Lady, it sounds as though chastity is to be made the criterion for ladies receiving this benefit. It is rather like the criterion applied by Victorian husbands in the injunction they placed upon their widows when making their wills, that their widows should enjoy the benefits of the estate only as long as they did not remarry and till as long as they remained chaste.
I understand how the Government have got themselves into this position. They have decided to make this benefit payable to those who might have been in a position to work but for their disability. They appreciate that it is difficult to work out which married women and housewives would be in that position. By adopting this approach, the Government are in danger of making a nonsense which the hon. Member for Ormskirk recently attacked in the Press and one which it will be extremely difficult for the Government to defend.
Another problem—my hon. Friend the Member for Wells touched on this in his interesting contribution—is the qualification the Government have chosen for the invalidity pension—I use the language of the Bill. The criterion is that the recipient should be "incapable of work".

As my hon. Friend pointed out, that has the effect of sounding like an absolute earnings rule.
As the hon. Member for Eccles pointed out, one of the great needs of the severely disabled and the handicapped is to be encouraged to get themselves into some modest work, and a pension or benefit should be designed to meet the special needs and expenses of the disabled or to compensate for their reduced earnings level.
The terms of the Bill are that this new invalidity pension is to be payable only to those "incapable of work". It would seem that anybody who is contemplating taking on some low-paid employment will disqualify himself. I hope that the Minister of State will help us on this aspect. We are trying to be constructive and to steer this provision on to more commonsense and useful lines for the disabled.
Clause 6(6) contains a regulation-making power to define exactly what "incapable of work" means. Will the Minister use that regulation-making power so to define "incapable of work" that modest earnings up to a pretty high level will not be caught? I would prefer the Government to get away from the whole idea of an earnings rule—other hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Wells, have urged this, too—and to try to find a much better definition of those qualifying for the benefit.
If the Government insist on having an earnings rule, it will be necessary to examine how the Minister will use this regulation-making power. As we intend to take this matter up in Committee, I hope that the Minister will place draft regulations before the Committee showing how the Government intend to use the regulation-making power, if that is the way they intend to get themselves out of the difficulty.
I am sorry to take a little time in dealing with the question of disability income, but this is a crucial part of the Bill and it occupied the time of many of those who have spoken. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey dealt at some length with the rate at which the new benefit is to be paid and highlighted the difficulties inherent in the way in which the rate is set out in the Bill. She shared


the disappointment expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wells at the comparatively disappointing level of these first steps.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey expressed worry, first, about the fact that the rate of the pension is only about 60 per cent. of the contributory pension. I accept that the case could be made for that, and it follows the precedent of our non-contributory pension for the over-80s. However, we are seriously concerned at the prospect that supplementary benefit rights will be lost completely by recipients of the invalidity pension, and we would very much wish that it could be disregarded for supplementary benefit purposes. If it is not, as a number of hon. Members have pointed out, it will not amount to very much in practice for many of the most severely disabled.
I share the surprise of my hon. Friend the Member for Wells that only £11 million is being devoted to this provision. I would be ruled out of order if I went on to compare that with the amount spent on tea and cheese subsidies and the cost of the proposals for nationalising various key industries. However, we have a ground for saying that £11 million represents only a modest step.
I have dealt with most of the innovations and the point of view we shall try to take in Committee to strengthen them. The remainder of the Bill is living with inflation and it is quite clear from the size of it that the system is under great strain. We must begin to wonder whether the national insurance system will match up to the test of looking after those in great difficulties at times of inflation such as this.
Another matter which will have to be raised on another occasion because I do not have time to deal with it now concerns fraud and abuse. That is causing great concern to many people. We welcome what the Minister said in reply to the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) that the safeguards we introduced are still being applied, but it is not only my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Edgbaston and Wells who are anxious to press him further on that. Perhaps as Members of Parliament we need an election to remind us how aware the public are of abuse of a system

that they would otherwise like to respect. The Government need to be urged to make sure that, given all the practical difficulties, everything possible is being done to reduce the level of fraud and abuse.
We must make sure that although the system is under great strain and large sums have been put into it, inconsistencies and anomalies are not being created by the Secretary of State's uncertain hand in dealing with administration and in choosing priorities. We shall want to follow closely what was said by the hon. Members for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) and Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington about the earnings rule. As the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said, the position among the Conservatives is that we make no attempt to defend the rule. We agree with everything he said in putting strictures upon it and we wish to see it abolished. We pledged ourselves to phase it out as quickly as circumstances allowed. In case the Minister of State accuses us of becoming irresponsible in Opposition, I accept that Conservative Ministers, in his position, put forward just the argument that he no doubt will be putting forward to his hon. Friend, that no one defends the rule but that resources have to be found before it can be abolished in the way that we should all like.
In Committee we shall look closely at the four-to five-year phasing-out period suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington. I wish to follow once more the argument of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury about the choice of priorities that the Government seem to have made somewhat inadvertently between the large age allowances for tax and the abolition of the earnings rule. We for our part will not be irresponsibly pressing the Government to spend large amounts of money that we know are not available, but we shall listen with interest to the arguments put forward about the earnings rule.
I wish now to deal with the question of anomalies and inconsistencies and how we should avoid unintentionally getting the system into a muddle as it comes under great strain from inflation. I am very concerned about the question of the poverty trap, as it is coming to be called


in the jargon of those journals which follow these matters. As the Minister knows, this means the serious problem where a combination of so many means-tested benefits and the incidence of taxation leave the lower paid no better off although their earnings may rise. They find themselves in the situation where for every pound they earn, they lose a great deal in tax allowances or means-tested benefit, so that they risk losing most of their additional earnings. This poverty surtax can be the equivalent of confiscatory taxation for the very poor in our society. I do not apologise for raising the matter, because it is one of those that the Government have been getting wrong from the moment they came into office.
Earlier this year the Department of Health and Social Security and the Treasury got completely at cross-purposes by raising the FIS eligibility limits without raising personal tax allowances and the tax threshold in line. They made the poverty surtax much worse. The situation was also made worse earlier this year when the Secretary of State for Education and Science raised the means-test limits for free school meals without the tax threshold being raised.
The Government are improving. This time the disregards will improve the position and give slightly more incentive to the lower paid. They have resisted the idea of clawback on family allowances. If they had not, they would have made the poverty trap much worse. But they have committed themselves to raising the FIS eligibility limits again.
The Secretary of State has announced increases in the needs allowance for rent and rates rebates. If they are carried out without proper consultation with the Treasury on personal tax allowances and tax thresholds, the Government will find that they are making people no better off and are putting a huge disincentive in the way of the very low paid increasing their earnings.
I notice that this new package comes into effect at the start of the new financial year in 1975. From that I assume that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will include in his next Budget a massive increase in personal allowances and will raise tax thresholds. It is not good enough for the Secretary of State to say that that has already been announced for the over-65s, because for the most part

they are not affected by the problem of losing any increase in earnings. The Minister of State cannot say what his right hon. Friend will do in his next Budget, but I trust that he can reassure us that this time his Department is in close consultation with the Chancellor, and that the Government will get it right this time. I trust that they will not find that, because one hand does not know what the other is doing, they have unintentionally made the poverty surtax so much more serious. We hope that they will get better at that kind of thing as time goes on, and that the Minister can reassure us about some of the worrying features of the Bill.
Although there are many matters we shall raise in Committee, as we have in today's debate, we accept that in inflationary times the whole system is groaning under the strain. We realise the desperate problems of all those in receipt of pensions and benefits, who are waiting for the Bill and the increased benefits to relieve the burden of inflation. Therefore, we shall not oppose Second Reading, but we look for considerable improvements in structure, because the Secretary of State's professed good intentions are once again outstripping her competence to carry them into effect in the details of her legislation.

8.38 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Brian O'Malley): I should not expect the Opposition to oppose the Bill. They could hardly do so. What I find astonishing is their impudence, particularly that of the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who made a speech which was long but not notable in content. It boiled down to a pile of Committee points plus a great deal of carping. I am not prepared to take criticism of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or of the Government's record on pensions and social security matters from any Conservative Member. The pensions record of the Conservative Government between 1970 and the beginning of this year was deplorable. When they left office the retirement pension was at a lower percentage of national average earnings than at any time since the inception of the National Insurance Scheme.
The hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) knows something about some of these matters. He complained


that the Government were not introducing family allowances for the first child in April 1975. The hon. Gentleman should not criticise this Government. He should examine the appalling record of his own Government in that respect. The late Iain Macleod made a firm promise to the Child Poverty Action Group that family allowances would be increased. That promise, made before the 1970 General Election, was not kept during the whole period of the Conservative administration.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Mr. O'Malley: I will not give way. I want to make progress. The debate has gone on for a long time, and hon. Members are waiting for another debate.
The third thing that I do not have to take—from the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe)—is criticism of the present Government about inflation. If any Government created the conditions in which inflation began in this country in recent years, it was a Conservative Government. We have only to consider the latest wage increase movement over the last month for which figures are available to see that a substantial part of the increase recorded is as a result of the operation of the trigger mechanism which the previous Prime Minister and his administration introduced. We do not have to take anything from the Opposition about how to deal with inflation. Their way of dealing with inflation produced the miners' strike, a three-day working week and the placing of this country on the verge of chaos. They are not in a position to start criticising either my right hon. Friend or the Government on their pensions record or on any other aspect of policy.
The right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East, like many of my hon. Friends who made constructive speeches, found little to criticise in the Bill. He chose to talk about something else. The general attitude of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, as of so many of his hon. Friends, was that while the Bill might in itself be praiseworthy it is in some sense rendered less so because of its Labour parentage. That was an interesting aspect of the debate.
There were some exchanges about the Conservative manifesto which referred to six-monthly upratings. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Rushcliffe, who works hard on becoming knowledgeable in these matters, should have fallen into the same trap as his right hon. and learned Friend. The position is that six-monthly upratings would require no extra staff if there were almost permanent use of intolerable hours of overtime and if casual staff were accepted on a continuing basis. I do not believe that anyone in the House would be prepared to accept that situation. If, however, that approach were not adopted, there would be a need for some 2,000 extra staff within the Department of Health and Social Security.
The next point concerned uprating within 12 weeks. The Conservative manifesto suggested that there would be an uprating in January. The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested later that it might have been early in February. To uprate in 12 or 13 weeks between announcement and implementation would require about 3,000 extra staff after they had been trained.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: No.

Mr. O'Malley: If the hon. Gentleman will not believe me, I do not know what kind of situation we are in. I am giving him the hard administrative facts. I am saying that this Government have made considerable progress. We came into office and brought in an uprating not 12 months after the Conservative uprating but within nine and a half months. We are prepared to make another uprating in April and another one in December next year. I do not think we have to take criticism from the Opposition about that.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I am disappointed that the Miinster should try to suggest that we are talking about shortening the gap between the review date and the payment of benefits. His right hon. Friend used that argument, but it is a different point. It is something that the Secretary of State tried to do and in doing so she got into a mess. We suggested six-monthly reviews. If the Minister suggests that 2,000 extra staff need to be recruited for six-monthly reviews, how many extra staff


has he taken on to cope with the eight-monthly reviews that his Government have guaranteed? Why is it administratively impossible to make the slight change of two months? Is it because the idea has Conservative parentage?

Mr. O'Malley: The hon. Gentleman should not start crowding the argument. The point was whether it would be possible to bring into operation an uprating in January or February 1975. I have demonstrated, even to the hon. Gentleman's satisfaction—I am glad if I have provoked him on this matter—that it was not possible. Discussions have proceeded with the staff to avoid the difficulties which arose last July, when we took a decision which resulted in an enormous amount of overtime. On that occasion the staff, after initial problems, paid out the greater percentage of increased pensions on time.
There is common ground between the Government and my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) and Greenwich (Mr. Barnett). The objection to the abolition of the earnings rule is the cost. At the new level of benefit, it is estimated that the cost would be £175 million in a full year. Some hon. Members, in a hypothetical question, asked whether, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had acted differently, money might not have been available to abolish the earnings rule.
The benefit of abolition of the earnings rule would be restricted to the 300,000 pensioners whose pensions are now being affected by the operation of the rule. If we in the Department found ourselves with an extra £170 million, we would not think it right, at a time of competing claims on scarce resources, that the whole of that amount should go to the abolition of the earnings rule. For example, the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) and my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) made a strong case for further improvement in the disability benefits.
But whereas the abolition of the earnings rule would be restricted to the 300,000 pensioners currently having their pensions affected by the rule, the proposals announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give

relief to over 2 million people who either pay tax now or would have been brought into tax had it not been for the new arrangements.

Sir G. Howe: Perhaps I may raise a point of a non-contentious nature, because I want to be clear about the Government's position. As I recall it, the White Paper "Better Pensions" envisaged, without apparent modification, that the earnings rule should continue to apply to State pensions. I do not recall any reference in it to abolition of the earnings rule. Yet the hon. Gentleman appears to be implying that he accepts abolition as his objective. Is there any inconsistency there?

Mr. O'Malley: There is no inconsistency. The abolition of the earnings rule is a very expensive proposition. There is a large number of competing priorities. One looks forward to relaxation of the earnings rule as more resources become available. I said that the argument about the abolition of the rule is confined to the cost and no other ground.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) charmingly hid what to us were completely unacceptable and, I would say, vicious principles. I describe them as that having thought before saying it. We have said over the years that we have no intention of withdrawing supplementary benefits from the wives and children of strikers, because we are not prepared to use the starvation of wives and children as a weapon against men taking industrial action. The hon. Lady must remember that her own Secretary of State was not prepared to do it either. If she takes an easy populist line like that, she has to be attacked by those of us who take a strong contrary view and regard her views as completely unacceptable.

Mrs. Knight: The Minister should read my speech tomorrow. I did not mention the wives and children of strikers. I directed my remarks specifically to strikers and said that strikers could get benefits from their union funds once they were out on strike. There is no question of anyone starving because they are on strike. If a union calls a man out on strike, it is not vicious for society to suppose that the union should support him while he is on strike.

Mr. O'Malley: What is the hon. Lady talking about? If that is her case, she should take the trouble to find out the facts before she comes into the House. Under the supplementary benefits system and the National Assistance Board, even going back over 100 years to the poor law guardians and the overseers of the poor, men on strike have never received benefits on their own behalf. They have received benefits in respect of their wives and dependants. Neither at this time nor at any time during the twentieth century have such men on strike received benefits from public funds.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: My hon. Friend is wrong, I am sure unintentionally. As he knows, Members of Parliament can strike for days, weeks and months on end, yet they get full pay and no one says one word against them.

Mr. O'Malley: My hon. Friend is not like that; he is always here.
The hon. Lady talked about abuse. It does not help a hard-pressed system and hard-pressed officers, who are doing their best to stop abuse of the system, to speak as she speaks. I would say to her what I would say to any constituent, any Member of Parliament or any member of the public—that any of them who knows of an invidual case with individual details should send those details to the local supplementary benefits office, to the local manager, or Members of Parliament should send the details to a Minister.
I take it amiss when the hon. Lady quotes an individual case to me on which she has never approached the Secretary of State, the Under-Secretary or myself. If there are individual complaints, they should be raised on an individual basis. Witch-hunting of the kind that I saw in 1968–69 about abuse caused a great deal of unhappiness to a number of genuine claimants.
This Government are keeping not only to the letter but to the spirit of the manifestos on which we fought the February and October elections. We introduced on 22nd July the largest pensions increase since the national insurance system began. Only four months later, we are announcing another set of substantial increases, which will mean a 50 per cent. increase

in pensions in just over 12 months of a Labour Government.
The Chancellor has announced substantial improvements in tax allowances and the Christmas bonus is once again being paid to all pensioners. Within nine months we have done something substantial about the level of family allowances, on which the Conservative Government did nothing in three and a half years. We have introduced two new benefits for the disabled. I agree with those who have said that we are making a beginning in a difficult field.
Of course I recognise the views of those who think that more progress should be made. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) spoke about one-parent families. I think he will have recognised that the Bill gives effect to the Finer recommendations on disregards, and that in addition the Supplementary Benefits Commission has implemented a number of recommendations on supplementary benefit—for example, the payment of the adult scale rate to all lone parents under 18 who are non-householders. I could quote a number of examples, and if my hon. Friend would put down specific Questions, I should be only too pleased to answer them.
The House knows of the significant contribution which my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South makes on these matters, and particularly on the subject of widows and one-parent families. I hope that he will feel reassured by the Bill.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The Minister is sailing through his speech and I know that he referred to Committee points earlier, but, on the question of disability income, does he propose to say no more than that he has listened to what has been said? I trust that he will give some guidance on the question of the timetable for the allowances, which is not just a Committee point, and on whether there will be an earnings rule, which is not just a Committee point, and on its relationship to supplementary benefit. The hon. Gentleman should assist the House with regard to what is proposed and not glide over the subject in the way that he has done.

Mr. O'Malley: I am trying to make a Second Reading speech, not a Committee


speech. I have tried to deal with the major arguments which have been adduced. If there are any questions to which hon. Members want answers before the Committee stage—

Mrs. Knight: Now.

Mr. O'Malley: The hon. Lady must not shout like that. If there are any matters of detail on which it is clearly impossible for me to comment in winding up a Second Reading debate, I will consider them before the Committee stage and, if necessary, write to hon. Members and hon. Ladies about them.

Sir G. Howe: I do not want to press the Minister unreasonably and I know that there is other business that we want to get on to, but there are two points which were not made clear in the White Paper and which have not been made clear but appear to have been deliberately steered round in this debate.
First, will the new invalidity pension be offset entirely against supplementary benefits so that there will be no net increase for people on supplementary benefit? That appears to be implicit in the Explanatory Memorandum, but we are entitled to a clear answer on it. If not, how else is the cost reduced from £70 million gross to £11 million net? Secondly, does it follow from the definition of the qualifying condition that on any day that a person who prima facie qualifies for the benefit is at work, whatever he earns on that day, he will not qualify for the benefit? In other words, it looks like a 100 per cent. earnings rule. Is that correct?
We are entitled to answers to those two questions. They go to the fundamentals of public understanding of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. The fact that the point has been raised twice underlines its importance.

Mr. O'Malley: The answer to the first question is "Yes". The answer to the second question is that there are the same earnings limits as with the invalidity pension.
The Bill has been generally welcomed in the House. In view of the substantial improvement in pensions which once again is being introduced, the improvements in family allowances and the be-

ginnings of a system of disability income as laid down in the White Paper, I think that it will be felt that the Government are keeping faith with the country and with the labour movement in implementing their manifestos of the February and October elections.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to basic scheme benefits and benefits in respect of industrial injuries and diseases; to increase family allowances; and to amend Parts I and III of Schedule 2 to the Supplementary Benefit Act 1966, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament, at weekly rates of £6·90 (together with increases for child or adult dependants), of new basic scheme benefits as follows:—

(a) a pension for persons who are incapable of work and have been so incapable for not less than 196 days; and
(b) an allowance for persons engaged in caring for persons in respect of whom there is payable either an attendance allowance or such other payment out of public funds on account of their need for attendance as may be prescribed,
with, in each case, a relaxation of the conditions of entitlement for men over 70 and women over 65 and a provision excluding a woman from entitlement if—

(i) she is married and either she is residing with her husband or he is contributing to her maintenance at a weekly rate not less than the weekly rate of the new benefit, or
(ii) she is cohabiting with a man as his wife;

(2) any increase in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under any other Act, being an increase attributable to—

(a) raising—

(i) to £9·20 and £6·20 the weekly rates of attendance allowance;
(ii) to £4·30 and £6·90 the weekly rates of Category C or D retirement pensions


(iii) the weekly rates of increases of Category C retirement pensions for child or adult dependants;
(b) new provisions for increasing the rates or amounts of basic scheme benefits by order;
(c) increasing the weekly rates of allowances under the Family Allowances Act 1965 payable in respect of each child in a family other than the only, elder or eldest to £1·50;
(d) increasing (except as respects occupational pensions and redundancy payments) the weekly amount of income to be disregarded in calculating a person's resources for the purposes of benefit under the Supplementary Benefit Act 1966 or provisions amending paragraphs 2, 21, 22 or 23 of Schedule 2 to that Act;

(3) subject to the provision made by subsection (4) of section 46 of the Social Security Act 1973 for reimbursement out of the National Insurance Fund, the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the administrative expenses which are so payable under subsection (2) of that section;

(4) payments into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Dormand.]

Orders of the Day — ROAD TRAFFIC (SEAT BELTS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Before calling the Minister to move the Second Reading of the Bill, I would inform the House that Mr. Speaker has not selected the amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Fergus Montgomery: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are to have a debate on the important subject of compelling people to wear seat belts in cars. It is 9 o'clock, and the Leader of the House said during Business questions that at 10 o clock the debate will be adjourned. We shall, therefore, have to discuss this matter again on another day. Would it not be more sensible for the Government to adjourn the debate now so that we have the debate in its entirety and hear all the arguments at one sitting?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members have not had this matter sprung upon them. It has been known that these two Bills were being discussed today. It is for the Government to place their business on the Order Paper. The busi-

ness has been on the Order Paper, and I cannot deal with it in any other way.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In your capacity in the Chair you have a right to protect hon. Members, particularly back benchers, and to safeguard the value of our debate. There is no doubt that the subject is contentious. I take the opposite view from that which my hon. Friends take, but it is a matter that may well be decided by debate on the Floor of the House. It is, therefore, all the more important that there should be continuous debate upon it.
The Deputy Chief Whip is present. We should lose but 55 minutes and it is not as though we should bring the whole of the Governments programme to a halt by deferring consideration of the Bill. I ask the Government seriously to consider postponing the debate. That would enhance the standing of the House and underline the importance of debate in deciding issues. We should then have a full day on this important measure, which is important not only to those who oppose it but to those whose lives will be saved by its implementation.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members are raising too many points of order. I wish to make it abundantly clear that I have no power to adjourn the debate before 10 o'clock.

9.3 p.m.

The Minister for Transport (Mr. Frederick Mulley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am sorry that hon. Members, whose concern I understand, did not wait for me to say that the Government's intention is that there should be a proper debate on this subject. We shall not seek a decision today. If anyone is disadvantaged by the debate being in two sections, I feel that in moving the Bill I am at the maximum disadvantage. I have no choice whether to speak today or next time, whereas other hon. Members have such discretion.
It might help if I spoke fairly briefly. In these special circumstances the House might agree that on the next occasion I should have leave to reply to the arguments put in the debate.

Mr. Marcus Fox: Is the Minister saying that he will make his speech and that, whenever, through the usual channels, we get a further day's debate, he will make the same speech again? That would be a great waste of time.

Mr. Mulley: I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I were to continue my speech. I do not seek to take too much time now. I shall listen to all the contributions and hope that the House will wish me to reply to points made in the debate. I shall not seek to make the same speech twice, but I shall see that the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) receives a copy of HANSARD which he can carry with him until we next debate this subject.
This is a short enabling Bill the purpose of which is to permit me to make regulations requiring the compulsory wearing of seat belts and to make other regulations concerning exemptions and related matters.
The background to the Bill is fairly well known to the House, but some newer hon. Members may not be aware of the provision in a similar form to that which is now before us which was inserted by another place in the Conservative Government's Road Traffic Bill almost exactly a year ago. A Second Reading was given to that Bill, including that provision, but it proceeded no further because the February election intervened. When I came to introduce my own Road Traffic Bill in May, I put this clause in my Bill, but on that occasion another place decided to take it out.
When we reached the end of last Session and dealt with the Committee stage of the Road Traffic Bill on that occasion, I had hoped—and the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) would have called me to task had I been neglectful in this respect—to reinsert the provision in respect of seat belts, but I regarded five o'clock on a Friday as not the most convenient time to debate these matters.

Hon. Members: It is late now.

Mr. Mulley: In parliamentary terms five-past nine on a Thursday is rather more respectable than a quarter-past five on a Friday afternoon. However, clearly we could not then have dealt with the matter in the short time that remained

before the Recess. I undertook on that occasion to give the House an opportunity to debate this matter as soon as possible in the new Session. This Bill is the first instalment, as it were, of that undertaking.

Mr. John Mendelson: Although I appreciate that my right hon. Friend is not the manager of the Government's business, will he undertake that after this debate has been adjourned, we resume the debate at 3·30 on an afternoon in the middle of the week, so that we may devote proper time to considering a serious subject of this nature?

Mr. Mulley: I would be happy to give that undertaking if I were in a position to do so, but, as my hon. Friend says, Ministers do not have the opportunity of picking their own time for their Bills. Consultations have to take place on these matters. However, I am glad that my hon. Friend made that point and I hope that it will be noted in many quarters.
The Bill is couched in wide terms and this has been done to permit maximum consultation. If the Bill's provisions are thought to be too wide, assuming that the Bill receives a Second Reading, we can deal with that question in Committee. If we can get a Second Reading in reasonable time, I intend to try to bring in regulations next spring.
I should make clear that I seek only to deal with cars and light vans already fitted with seat belts. They are cars registered since 1st January 1965, light vans registered since 1st April 1967, and certain three-wheelers registered for the first time on 1st September 1970. This excludes less than 10 per cent. of vehicles on the road, and probably less than 5 per cent. of the annual mileage. I should make it clear, however, that we seek to make the wearing of seat belts compulsory only for front seat passengers and drivers.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Am I to understand from what my right hon. Friend has said that old jalopies—untaxed, un-insured, with no certificates of road worthiness and with faulty steering and bad tyres—can be free from seat belts, but that the brand new car which is an efficient vehicle is compelled to have seat belts?

Mr. Mulley: My hon. Friend should not assume that I said any of the things that he said. I said simply that the regulations would apply only to those vehicles which are required now by law to have seat belts fitted. The purpose of the seat belts is to protect the passengers and not the vehicles. That probably disposes of my hon. Friend's point.
There would be need for a number of exemptions, and I am ready to consider any reasonable grounds for exemption. I have in mind situations such as where people are driving in reverse, local delivery and collection services like those performed by milkmen who drive a few yards only to deliver more milk, small children, medical cases—obviously we shall want to consult the profession about the best way of getting medical certificates where there are medical grounds for people feeling that they should not wear seat belts—taxi drivers and, very important, those physically unable either to fasten belts or to reach essential controls if they do so.

Mr. Wiggin: The right hon. Gentleman has suggested a very important list of exemptions. I think that he included taxi drivers. I am not clear about how we are to proceed with this Bill and how the right hon. Gentleman proposes to implement his proposals, but I hope that perhaps in Committee we shall have a chance to debate the exact exemptions. I can think of many rural taxi drivers who should not be exempted.

Mr. Mulley: We can do that if we get that far. My first concern is to get the Bill into Committee where these matters can be considered in detail. Obviously I want the advice of hon. Members on any reasonable grounds for exemption.
The case for the Bill has been made very clear in recent weeks in the Press and with particular force and clarity in last week's Sunday Mirror and in today's Daily Mirror. The case simply is that we have the opportunity to avert the deaths of at least 1,000 of our citizens every year and 10,000 cases of serious injury. I could produce statistical evidence to show that those forecasts are very much on the low side. Judging by the experience of other countries, it could be 1,300 deaths and 13,000 serious injuries. In simple terms that means

saving three lives and averting 30 serious injuries every day.
That is the issue before us. This is not theory. There has been a great deal of research done by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory and others. We have also the experience of countries not so dissimilar from our own. The wearing of seat belts has been compulsory in Australia since January 1972 after an experiment in the State of Victoria which started in 1970. The same has been true of New Zealand since June 1972, and more recently in France since July 1973. On the basis of how it has been going this year, the French Government estimate that it will save 1,200 lives. It is clearly getting across because all the Scandinavian countries, West Germany, Holland and others are contemplating bringing in the compulsory wearing of seat belts next year.
When we have the prospect of making this immense saving in life and suffering for our citizens, hon. Members may ask why this should be a contentious issue. I understand and accept that many hon. Members feel that it is. I remind the House that a similar controversy was generated when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, then Minister of Transport, introduced her drink-and-driving law in 1967. We do not hear anyone now saying that that should be repealed. Indeed, all the arguments are that it should be strengthened, and I have set up a committee to examine that law. It is calculated that my right hon. Friend's initiative has saved at least 5,000 lives since it was started seven years ago. The measure of what we are considering tonight is that at the minimum in seven years we should save 7,000 lives and 100,000 cases of serious injury if nearly all people wear their seat belts. That is the issue in favour of the Bill.
I shall briefly mention some of the points that are so often brought out against the Bill. The most powerful, which no doubt will be deployed in the debate today or when we resume it, is that it is an interference with the liberty of the subject. There has to be a distinction—indeed, when we discussed the compulsory wearing of helmets some time ago I made this distinction—between a measure that is primarily concerned with the protection of the driver and passengers and one that is concerned with


third parties. That is broadly but not entirely true.
Anyone who dies or suffers a serious injury, who would not have died or suffered serious injury if he had been wearing a seat belt, owes substantial responsibilities to his family which may impinge on the community. Every case of serious injury throws an extra burden on our hard-pressed doctors, nurses, hospitals and public funds. Every serious accident or injury that otherwise might have been a slight accident or no injury had the person concerned been wearing a seat belt usually gives rise to great traffic congestion with economic cost and—without pushing the argument too far—possibly, indirectly, other accidents, because when people are held up—I am sure that this is a temptation for many hon. Members from time to time if they are unexpectedly delayed—they tend to take chances when trying to get to an appointment on time. Therefore, it is wrong to argue that the consequences are visited only upon the person who decides not to wear his seat belt.
Why not deal with the matter by persuasion? Successive Ministers of Transport have tried this for seven years. This is not a party point. That is why I am sure that all hon. Members welcome the opportunity of a free vote. In the last three years, successive Governments paid £2½million on what I think has been an effective publicity campaign with Jimmy Savile, and so on. When the expensive advertising is on, the wearing rate rises to 30 per cent., but when it is off it drops again to its steady 20 per cent. or 25 per cent. The House should contrast that with the voluntary wearing of crash helmets experiment. At the time of that legislation the rate was 80 per cent. as against 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. wearing seat belts when there was no propaganda.
Another point which is made is that this legislation cannot be enforced. In a sense there is a whole range of road safety and other legislation which cannot be enforced—indeed, no one would wish it—in a serious regular way. I am sure that no hon. Member would argue that we should dispense with the driving test and all that goes with it. How many hon. Members have to produce their driving licences every year, let alone every day?
Clearly there is no regular check, but the fact of whether people are wearing seat belts can be checked by the police in the same way as they check, as appropriate, whether a driver has a driving licence and insurance certificate. Most constables accept fully the safety implications of people wearing seat belts. The wearing of seat belts must be compulsory if it is to be effective, and the police do not see any exceptional difficulty in enforcement.
Another point which is often raised needs to be explored. I see that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) is very excited. He probably realises that this does not apply in Northern Ireland. There are people who genuinely feel that it is more dangerous to wear a seat belt than not to wear one. One readily concedes that there have been a few isolated cases in which it might have been better if a seat belt had not been worn. Such cases are extremely rare.
All research, medical and otherwise, shows that in most accidents people are less likely to be seriously injured if they remain in the car than if they are thrown out. I admit that there are examples to the contrary. I had an experience in the Army when riding a motor cycle at 70 miles an hour or so, which was as fast as it would go. I hit a lorry which was travelling in the opposite direction at the same speed as I was travelling. I was thrown completely clear and I was not injured in any way, but I would not recommend that as an appropriate course of action. Perhaps that incident is similar to the situation in which people say that they will not wear a scat belt because of the statistical possibility of one in a hundred—or something like that—that they might be advantaged by not so doing.
All the evidence and research of several years shows that people are half as likely to meet with death or serious injury if they wear seat belts than if they do not. The risk is reduced by half if they wear seat belts. Anyone who worries about the statistical aspect would not wish to drive from here to the Home Office without wearing a seat belt. That roughly indicates the kind of odds we are concerned with.
I remind hon. Members that we are debating a very important matter. I have


a responsibility as the Minister who is concerned with road safety matters, but all other hon. Members also have a responsibility. Every time our constituents learn of an increase in road casualties—happily the statistics have shown a favourable trend in recent months—they urge us to do something about the matter. A free vote on the Bill gives us an opportunity to do something.
We are being asked to save three lives and at least 30 serious injuries every day without any cost to public funds or to the individual motorist. Indeed, a saving of public funds will flow from reductions in casualties.
This is a challenge to which we should respond, and I hope that hon. Members will do so when the opportunity comes by voting for the Bill so that in Committee we can deal with the various detailed points that arise.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: Let me say at once that it is my intention to oppose the Bill. I hope that the House will decline to give it a Second Reading. I can assure the Minister for Transport that it is not intended in any way to be any form of criticism, either of himself or of his Department, when I say that I share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery) that on a matter of this importance it is unfortunate that the debate should be split at least over two days. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman's acceptance of some earlier comments will be borne in mind by the Governments' business managers and that we shall not find the Bill coming back on several occasions at a rather late hour.
I share the right hon. Gentleman's view that this is an important matter. In some ways it is a small matter but often small matters are important when dealing with such things as the liberty of the subject. While I welcome the fact that we have a completely free vote on the issue, I feel it is one on which many are still undecided. They are prepared to listen and perhaps have their minds affected by the arguments advanced. For that reason it is unfortunate that we do not have the debate over one day.
In opposing the Bill, let me say at once that for the purposes of argument there

are certain matters of fact which I accept. First, I accept that it is clearly sensible to wear a seat belt. I cannot pretend that I always follow my own advice. I attempt to when doing long journeys and I know that that is bad because a lot of accidents happen on short journeys. I believe it is extremely sensible for passengers to wear a belt and I think on balance it is certainly sensible to wear one when driving.
Certainly I accept for the purposes of my argument what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the figures which his Department has regularly put out. I accept that in the majority of serious accidents less injury would be caused to individuals wearing a seat belt. I accept that the majority of accidents are frontal accidents and that injury would be caused either by people being thrown against the windscreen or being hit by the steering wheel and things of that nature.
I accept the figure given by the right hon. Gentleman that there is the chance of a 50 per cent. reduction in death or serious injury figures through the wearing of seat belts. The third point I accept is the right hon. Gentleman's claim that it is right for successive Governments to continue to do all in their power to persuade people of the sensibility of wearing seat belts. Governments should be prepared to undertake advertising campaigns to that end. We should certainly encourage and persuade people to take all steps they can for their own safety.
Fourthly, I accept what the right hon. Gentleman said about seat belts being fitted to motor cars. After a period when seat belts were almost impossible to wear there are today some thoroughly good designs. Certainly the inertia type is highly to be commended.
If, for the purpose of the argument, I accept those facts, I believe that there are two facts which supporters of the Bill must, equally, accept. The first is that the Bill will in no way prevent one single accident. What it will do, and what is claimed on its behalf, is reduce the effects of injuries on those involved in accidents. With great respect to the Minister, his analogy with the drink and driving legislation was unfair.
I was one of the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen when the Minister's right hon. Friend was carrying that legislation through the House. I do not


believe that at any stage in Committee it was argued by my hon. Friends that there should not be legislation preventing those who had had too much drink from driving. If I remember the argument correctly, it related not to the breathalyser offence as such but whether it was right to impose automatic penalties and automatic limits when the effect of alcohol was different upon different people. But, quite clearly, the clear distinction is that when dealing with drinking and driving we are dealing with cutting down the number of accidents and the potential danger to innocent third parties. Here what we are dealing with is not the number of accidents but injuries to people making a decision of their own choice.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has made a factual error. I remember very well when Mr. Marples was Minister for Transport and we on the Opposition Front Bench moved an amendment to a Bill, asking that there should be some form of restriction and penalty for those who were found drunk or to have too much alcohol in them when they were driving, and for the details to be considered and brought before the House by the Government. That amendment was turned down by the Government of the day.

Mr. Carlisle: I bow to the right hon. Gentleman's length of experience in the House, but I am bound to say that, if my recollection is correct, driving under the influence of alcohol to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of a vehicle has been an offence for a very long time under the law of this country, and I think since before the days of the then hon. Member for Wallasey. Mr. Marples. But I was limiting myself to comments on the Bill of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) introducing the breathalyser, in which I was involved.

Mr. Ronald Bell: It was in 1933 that it was made an offence to drive when under the influence of drink. The Bill to which my hon. and learned Friend was referring was simply about the method of proof.

Mr. Carlisle: I return to my speech. The second point that I ask the Minister and the supporters of the Bill to accept

is the fact that he has accepted that there are circumstances in which a person could fairly say that he would have been worse off, rather than better off, if he had been wearing a seat belt. Those circumstances may not be many. They may be isolated. They may be the circumstances of a sideways collision, rather than a frontal collision, in which one might be hurt more by wearing a seat belt.
The third point—a point which I have, perhaps, made already—is that the Minister must accept that here what we are dealing with is not the potentiality of injuries to others but the potentiality of injury to oneself. Whether or not we pass the Bill, we shall in no way diminish the risk to other road users, nor shall we in any way place at risk those who are not at risk at present. Therefore, it seems that what the House has to decide, when it divides on this issue on another day, is a fundamental issue and a difficult issue in a country which prides itself on its belief in freedom—of what are the proper limitations of the criminal law.
I emphasise "criminal" law because, again, I am not against the proposition that the failure to wear a seat belt might be a valid argument for the diminution of damages for someone who is involved in an accident because he failed to take proper care of himself. I am not against insurance companies attempting to do something in the loading of their policies because some people choose not to wear a seat belt. I am not against certain systems, such as we have seen in the Volvo motorcar, of lights which flash if one does not have one's seat belt on. What we are concerned with, however, is asking the fundamental question: are we or are we not right as a Parliament to impose the sanctions of the criminal law on an area of individual choice and an individual's decision as to his own individual safeguards?
If one is to answer that question, one has to go back to fundamentals. One has to ask, what is a crime and what should be criminal behaviour? Basically we have always recognised the distinction in this country that a crime is a crime because it offends against society and other members of society, and that matters which do not involve society are matters of civil rather than criminal law. We surely basically make criminal only that


conduct which has an effect, direct or significant, which is detrimental to the rights of others members of society. We do not make criminal that conduct of people in their own behaviour unless it has a direct and significant detrimental effect on the rights of others, whether it be rights to property or rights of a physical nature.
The criminal law never attempts to intrude into an area merely in an endeavour to attempt to save people from themselves.

Mr. Wiggin: I am following with care my hon. and learned Friend's most eloquent argument. I fully understand the argument he is deploying. Will he tell the House how he would apply the same argument to the legislation on drugs or even as regards the wearing of crash helmets by motor cyclists which was introduced by a Government of which he was a member?

Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend will be glad to learn that the second line of my notes is "drugs". I want to make one comment before I come to the question of drugs. I will come to the question of crash helmets as well.
I want to give an analogy of the point I was making about the normal area of the criminal law, namely, that an act is a crime only if the rights of others in society are affected by one's conduct. A good example of this is in relation to alcohol, where it is no crime to be drunk but it is a crime to be drunk and disorderly.
I come to the question of drugs. I do not take the wholly classical and libertarian view that the criminal law should be concerned only when other people's individual rights are affected. I accept that it is equally a proper area for the criminal law to involve itself in individual conduct, although that conduct does not directly affect the rights of others, if the effect of that conduct in itself is such that it is wholly debilitating to the fabric of society.
It is on that basis, for example, that we in Britain have always made certain offences of a sexual nature, although committed with the consent of the other party, nevertheless criminal, because we say that it is conduct of such a nature that it is wholly debilitating to the fabric of society as a whole.
Equally, I believe that the justification for our criminal law in regard to drugs is not that someone taking drugs is directly affecting the rights of others but that the very taking of drugs itself, if sufficiently widespread, is injurious to the fabric of society. That is why we justify our legislation as regards drugs.
I also accept—I come now nearer to the crash helmet question—that society may well have a right to bring the criminal law into force in a given area to protect young people. It may also, although I think that this is highly arguable, have the right to impose the criminal law in an area where the evidence is wholly and 100 per cent. one way.
We must draw the line somewhere. We must say with regard to the implications and sanctions of the criminal law, "So far and no further".
When it comes to attempting to enforce the compulsory wearing of seat belts I believe that we are going far over the line that we should draw between imposing the sanctions of the criminal law as against the choice of the individual.
The evidence is not all one way. We can all envisage types of accidents, as the Minister said, where people would be worse off if they were wearing a seat belt. So long as there are people who can say and genuinely believe that they are alive or are less badly injured because they had chosen not to wear a seat belt, I do not believe that the House would be right to impose sanctions upon people and to force them to take a course of conduct which they themselves, as mature adults, may on mature consideration decide that they do not wish to take.

Mr. Kenneth Lomas: I was hoping that the hon. and learned Member would give way. He has been going on for so long and many of us have been sitting here from six o'clock under the impression that the debate would start at seven o'clock. The hon. and learned Gentleman has now come into the Chamber and is trying to monopolise the debate, and it is about time he wrapped up.

Mr. Carlisle: I thought that most of us had been here from the beginning. The Minister was asked to open the debate at nine o'clock and we shall be talking only until ten o'clock and then


adjourning. The debate will continue on another day. I am explaining the argument against the Bill.
I have advanced what I believe to be the basic argument against the legislation, but I have certain further points to make. Another very strong argument against is the serious difficulty of enforcement. I do not accept the analogy that the Minister gave when he said it was difficult to know whether drivers had a driving licence. In that case the police simply ask the person whether he has a driving licence, and if he has not he has committed an offence. Under the Bill the police would be asked to enforce a law the offence against which would be not to be wearing a seat belt when the vehicle was moving. How on earth are the police to tell whether, when the vehicle was moving, the person was or was not wearing a seat belt? The police will not be able to enforce the law by saying what the driver was doing when the vehicle was stationary.

Mr. Ronald Bell: The problem would be overcome if, as in the case of the driving licence, the driver were given four days to put it on.

Mr. Carlisle: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that contribution.
The second further objection against the Bill flows from the difficulty of enforcement. The Bill, even if passed by this House, would in practice be blatantly disregarded, and I do not believe that we do any good to ourselves or to the law if we choose to pass legislation of that nature. By passing laws which are blatantly disregarded we only serve to bring the law into contempt.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Hear, hear.

Mr. Carlisle: I never imagined the day when I would find the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) agreeing with anything I said in this House.

Mr. Skinner: The hon. and learned Gentleman has fallen into a trap.

Mr. Carlisle: I can assure the hon. Member that even though he may agree with me here, I cannot imagine myself agreeing with anything else that he says.
Is the Minister seriously suggesting that, with the exception of delivery vans,

the drivers of which are not affected by the Bill, every housewife, for example, who is going shopping will remember to put on her belt when she moves the car 200 yards? I do not believe that that will happen, and that will lead to a blatant disregard of the law.
Thirdly, I believe that attempts to enforce the law will lead to greater antagonism between the police and the general public. We in this House have a duty to ensure that the laws we pass are easily enforceable. This one would not be, and it will exacerbate relationships between the police and the public.
It has been said that any regulation is justified if it will save a single life. If we were dealing here with a regulation which would save one innocent life of a third party I would agree with it, but that is not the case. The lives involved are the lives of the people who have the power to make a decision for themselves.
To bring the criminal law into the matter is in many ways an abuse of the legislative procedure. The Minister can argue fluently and convincingly that injuries cause cost to society, because they put more people into hospital and so on, but so do many other activities. We cannot sensibly pursue that argument, because it would mean preventing many people from doing many lawful acts merely because such prevention avoids accidents.
We pride ourselves on our freedom. If we are to retain that freedom we must be vigilant in its support. I am satisfied that the Bill goes beyond the limit of what the criminal law should attempt to impose by sanctions. Therefore, I hope that the House will decline to give it a Second Reading.

9.46 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am sure that I shall embarrass the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle), because I agree almost 100 per cent. with what he said. Perhaps that surprises him. Whether they are for or against the compulsory use of seat belts, all people can, I think, agree that it would be advisable for everyone to use his seat belt every time he uses his vehicle.
But the hon. and learned Gentleman is right to ask how compulsory use can be


enforced. A person who is moving, his car from in front of his house into his garage is not likely to use a seat belt. A policeman, however, would be entitled to say "I am charging you for failing to use your seat belt, and you are liable to a fine of £50. But standing outside your door is another person's vehicle which has had no road fund licence for the past three years, and has no insurance or certificate of roadworthiness. It has faulty tyres and bad steering, but as it was built in 1965 the owner does not have to have a seat belt, and he will not be fined £50".
In anticipation of the debate, I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 2nd November asking for a list of the various rules, regulations and so on applying to motorists and vehicles on the road. He replied on 18th November. He is probably so busy that he could not let me have all the details in the letter. I believe that there are about 2,000 rules and regulations. I cannot repeat them all, so I shall mention just a few. The hon. and learned Member for Runcorn spoke of the impossibility of enforcement, and my right hon. Friend half admitted this.
The various rules, regulations and orders relate to speedometers, emission of smoke from exhaust systems, rusting, steering and dangerous protruding parts. [Interruption.] I thought that would bring a laugh. I was referring not to the pleasant contours of motor cars but to jagged parts. There are also rules and regulations concerned with road fund licences, insurance certificates, roadworthiness certificates and registration. I could continue at length as there are many others.
I have been driving almost daily for 42 years. [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] I have never been stopped, for example, and asked to let my vehicle be examined to ensure that the lights were placed at the correct height. I have never been asked to allow my door handles to be examined to determine whether they are correctly adjusted. A commander of police at Scotland Yard has told me—I believe this to be true—that invariably no action is taken on any of these matters unless there is an accident or the driver is stopped for another offence such as speeding. If a speeding offence is com-

mitted or if there is the possibility of an offence having taken place and the driver is stopped, the police officer will ask, for example, to look at the tyres, the steering, the lights, the mudguards, to see whether they are hanging off, the bumper and various other parts. No doubt the police officer would go through the list.
How many times have the 2,000 sets of rules and regulations been enforced? There are not enough police to enforce them. The police are undermanned, underpaid and overworked. We are being told that all the time. The police cannot deal with these matters except when there is an accident or when motorists are stopped for a road traffic offence. That can be proved any day of the week. The statistics show that 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. of the vehicles on our roads do not exhibit a road fund licence.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I cannot believe that.

Mr. Lewis: Very well, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman goes out and has a look. Let him look round any of the streets where parking takes place. It is an offence not to have a certificate of roadworthiness. These matters go hand in glove. It is the person with an old jalopy built in 1965 or earlier which invariably is not fit to pass a roadworthiness certificate. The owners of the old jalopies, knowing that their vehicles have faulty tyres or faulty steering and would not meet the requirements of the roadworthiness examination, do not trouble to obtain a road fund licence. Invariably they do not get a certificate of insurance. That is because all these matters go hand in glove. These people are deliberate law-breakers.
The police cannot do anything about it. The police have reported thousands of cases of non-compliance. No action has been taken and the police have given up reporting. These cases cannot be dealt with in the courts because the courts are overloaded with work. If that is the situation now, what will happen if we introduce an unenforceable measure which will require motorists to put a belt across their bodies? When a policeman says "When I saw it, it was not done up", there will immediately be an argument. The regulation would be unenforceable.
I agree that the general wearing of seat belts would save several thousand lives a year—perhaps. But I remind my right hon. Friend that there are on average three accidents per day in the home resulting in death or serious injury. I am sure that many of them are caused because the victim has not been doing what he should have done. For example, perhaps there was no fireguard round an open fire. Every house should have a fireguard round an open fire. Shall we introduce a Bill to make it compulsory? Who is going to enforce it?
In almost every house in the country there are faulty electric light plugs. A faulty plug can kill. It can also damage other people's property. Shall we have a law that every electric light plug must be installed by a capable electrician and must be kept safe? How shall we enforce it? Yet such a law would save life and injury if enforced. It would also save time and money for the National Health Service in dealing with the victims of such accidents. One could go on through a whole list of advisable precautions.

Mr. Robert Adley: If the hon. Gentleman carries his argument to its logical conclusion—and I do not disagree with him—should we not all stop playing football in case we break a bone and have to go to hospital?

Mr. Lewis: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is gilding the lily. But there is point to what he has said. Lord Stokes, a very knowledgeable man in the motor industry, said on "Any Questions" recently that a person who simply drove down the road to the corner shop to buy a packet of cigarettes should put his seat belt on.

Mr. Mulley: Of course.

Mr. Lewis: Of course. Then let there be a law compelling him to do it. But should there not also be a law to stop him from going to get a packet of cigarettes, because that packet of cigarettes can kill? The hospitals are full of people who have been inhaling too much nicotine through smoking.
Then again, what about the man who happens to be a little obese? Earlier, the Minister said that this was a serious subject—

Mr. Mulley: rose—

Mr. Lewis: We can always come come back to this. I was going to say that I, more than anyone else, would probably agree—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments).

Orders of the Day — PRICES

That the Compensation for Limitation of Prices (Scottish Electricity Boards) Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 29th October, be approved.

Orders of the Day — PRICES

That the Compensation for Limitation of Prices (British Gas Corporation) Order 1974 a draft of which was laid before this House on 29th October, he approved.

Orders of the Day — PRICES

That the Compensation for Limitation of Prices (Electricity Boards) Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 29th October, be approved.

Orders of the Day — SOCIAL SECURITY

That the Social Security (Contributions) (Married Women and Widows Special Provisions) Amendment Regulations 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 30th October, be approved.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Ordered,
That there shall be a Select Committee to consider Science and Technology and to report thereon from time to time:

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from time to time the Minutes of the Evidence take before them and any Memoranda submitted to them.
That Five be the Quorum of the Committee.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to appoint Sub-committees and to refer to such Subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committees.

Ordered,
That every such Sub-committee have power to send for persons, papers and records to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report to the Committee from time to time.

Ordered,
That Three be the Quorum of every such Sub-committee.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to report from time to time the Minutes of the Evidence taken before such Sub-committees and any Memoranda submitted to them.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to appoint persons with technical or scientific knowledge for the purpose of particular inquiries, either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's order of reference.

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House until the end of this Parliament.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Orders of the Day — SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Ordered,
That Mr. Ronald Brown, Mr. Ray Carter, Mr. John Cunningham, Mr. Alexander Fletcher, Mr. David Ginsburg, Mr. Frank Hooley, Mr. Ted Leadbitter, Mr. Ian Lloyd, Mr. Neil Macfarlane, Mr. Airey Neave, Mr. Arthur Palmer, Mr. Norman Tebbit, Mr. Christopher Tugendhat and Mr. Kenneth Warren be members of the Select Committee on Science and Technology.

Ordered,
That the members of the Select Committee on Science and Technology nominated this day shall continue to be members of the Committee for the remainder of this Parliament.

Ordered,
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Orders of the Day — SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Ordered,
That the Minutes of the Evidence taken before Sub-committees of the Select Committee on Science and Technology in the last Parliament and reported to the House be referred to the Select Committee on Science and Technology.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

Orders of the Day — NORTH-EAST WALES

10.1 p.m.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I wish to draw the attention of the House to the employment situation in North-East Wales. At the moment, the situation may not look too bad if the number of registered unemployed is taken as the yardstick, but that is a most unsatisfactory measure. Our problem in North-East Wales has for a long time been a low level of economic activity. Even by the yardstick of unemployment, things are already beginning to look pretty bad at the western end of the area. The number of people out of work in the Rhyl employment exchange area always rises at this time of the year because of seasonal factors in the hotel and holiday industry, but already this year it is almost double last year's level.
Of course we are talking about fairly small numbers, and it would be possible to effect a rapid improvement. An advance factory is being built to provide 40 badly-needed male jobs, but the construction is many months behind schedule, and what is much more worrying is that there has not been one inquiry from a prospective employer. On the other hand, although the outlook for jobs in the Rhyl area is bleak, I see no grounds for real alarm.
The situation in the east of the old county of Flintshire is different and much more worrying. The numbers out of work still look reassuringly low, but these below-average figures conceal an unhealthy dependence on only three major employers—British Steel at Shotton, Hawker Siddeley at Broughton and Courtaulds at Greenfield and Flint. If any one of the three were to run into trouble, the effects on the whole area would be serious. If two of the three ran into trouble at the same time, the situation would be alarming indeed. At this moment, we have not two but all three in serous difficulty.
When I speak of difficulties I do not mean simply the general rundown and loss of confidence which is afflicting British industry as a whole. I mean specific and immediate troubles. The Shotton steelworks is, of course, far and away the biggest employer. The outlook there is clouded with uncertainty as to


whether British Steel is to go ahead with its plans to phase out steel-making as part of its massive plans for restructuring the whole industry. Some 6,000 or more jobs are at stake.
I do not want to say too much about this because, although this is the area where the largest number of jobs is affected, it is also one in which the Government can act, and may act, to save the jobs. There are high hopes that they will do so. I hope that the Minister will not repeat, incidentally, the charge that I voted for the rundown of steel-making at Shotton. It would be just as true to say that the Secretary of State for Wales voted against the provision of more jobs at Port Talbot. What I am sure of, however, is that the Government are well aware of the problem of Shotton and that they will do what they can to help.
Now Hawker Siddeley is in trouble, hit by the recession in the air travel business and having to cancel some projects such as the HS146 and to cut down on others such as the A300B airbus. To compound the company's problems, there are all the uncertainties brought about by the possibility of nationalisation. There may be those at Hawker Siddeley who hope that nationalisation would ensure the continuance of the HS146 and would welcome it on that account. But others must reflect that Hawker Siddeley has prospered and paid good wages because it has backed its judgment when the Government have hung back or often backed out. These more thoughtful people must wonder whether nationalisation would bring such benefits to Hawker Siddeley in the long run.
Courtaulds, at any rate in the short term, is in the worst trouble of the three. There are shortages of raw materials, falling orders, a general slump in the textile industry and a nasty outbreak of industrial disputes in which neither management nor unions have displayed much skill in mending matters. Hundreds are on short time and there is widespread fear of redundancy on a large scale and even of a complete shutdown.
There is, therefore, trouble for all three major employers. One more small employer but a good one, Mostyn Dock, is threatened by the Government's proposals for the nationalisation of the ports—mercifully absent from this year's

Gracious Speech, but which, if it comes, means that Mostyn will be assimilated into Liverpool and therefore will be liable to suffer the same fate as Liverpool docks.
In the countryside, too, there is a massive loss of confidence which the announcement of the Minister of Agriculture today, although it will help, will not dispel. That means that the countryside can no longer be looked on as a limited but steady source of employment.
Now there is a new adverse factor affecting areas such as the North Wales hinterland. The huge rise in petrol prices will aggravate the problem of low economic activity. Wages there are low and people who have to travel to work by car because of inadequate bus services will find by the time that they have paid their travel costs that they are not much better off than if they stay at home on supplementary benefit. This is a most undesirable state of affairs from a social and economic point of view. The time may well be coming when the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to think in terms of allowing travel-to-work costs to be set against tax liability even if the consequence is that the cost of petrol for purely pleasure motoring must increase even more.
Those are our problems. What can the Government do to help? They must begin by recognising how precarious is the situation. Because everything is liable to go wrong at once, our present apparently tolerable situation could deteriorate so rapidly as to become well nigh irreversible. Therefore, even if the Government say—and no one can blame them for saying it—that their capacity to help is limited by the very tight economic situation, whatever they can do must be done quickly. Perhaps it will be too little but let it not be too late.
I have no doubt about the prime requirement of North-East Wales and indeed of all North Wales, and that is better communications, which means, above all, roads. Our so-called main roads are appalling. The A5 is in just about the same condition as Telford left it. The A55 is about as wide as a service road to a shopping centre. Successive Governments of both parties have done nothing for a decade. I know that roads cannot be built overnight, but cannot we


have an indication that these roads will get high priority?
It is not just a question of money, men and material because money, men and material are being used to spruce up minor roads, which are the responsibility of the county council. I know this because the minor road which leads to my cottage is having thousands and thousands of pounds spent on it to even it out and widen it.
The A55 remains totally untouched. Nothing is done. There are not even firm promises. A clear commitment now from the Government on a timetable for the complete dual-tracking of the A55 could have a big effect on a potential employer thinking in terms of setting up in North-East Wales.
It is not just a matter of the roads in Wales. There are also equally appalling roads on the English side of the border. To get to the awful A55 in Wales, one has to travel from the M6 along equally appalling roads to Chester or through Shrewsbury. It sometimes seems as though the road planners are equipped with a map of Britain from which Wales is rubbed out, so that when they look to see where to put the roads they say to one another "It is no good taking that dual carriageway any further west than the M6 because it leads only to cliffs and there are not even any ports there." I sometimes wonder whether the Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for the Environment ever meet. Their roads never do. I only hope that the Channel Tunnel, if it is ever built, is not built on the same principle.
Even if the Government were here and now to announce a big programme of road improvements for 1975, we still need more immediate help. The only immediate help in the Government's gift is full development area status, which all the neighbouring regions enjoy and which North-East Wales alone does not enjoy. It is not just that we are without it. It is that all our neighbours have it and, therefore, any manufacturer thinking of setting up in that part of the world will be convinced by the much bigger attractions in terms of investment and, above all, regional employment premium offered by Merseyside or North-West Wales. To some extent the regional employment premium is a two-edged weapon. I am

not happy about its long-term effects. It tends to perpetuate low-wage industries, but it is undeniably an effective short term aid and I hope that the Government will be prepared to use it.
I cannot expect the Minister tonight to calm our anxieties, but I hope that at least he and his colleagues will not try to justify complacency on the ground of statistics, which at the moment are highly misleading. Our situation is very precarious, and if action is to be taken it must be taken in good time.

Mr. Geraint Morgan: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr George Thomas): Order. Has the hon. and learned Member for Denbigh (Mr. Morgan) reached agreement with the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer)?

Mr. Morgan: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I trust that the Minister has no objection.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): I have no objection.

10.13 p.m.

Mr. Geraint Morgan: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) for allowing me to intervene briefly in the Adjournment debate. I fully endorse everything he has said about the situation in North-East Wales, particularly with regard to the roads. If anything, my constituency suffers even more than his from the deplorable state of the A5 and A55.
The purpose of my intervention is to draw to the attention of the Minister something about which I have had a considerable amount of correspondence with the Welsh Office, and that is the state of affairs at Llanrwst. The town, in my constituency, has for a long time had an unenviably high rate of unemployment, much of which is unfortunately due to the fact that premises which could house firms, which could in turn bring employment to the town, have been sterilised because the Secretary of State for Wales and his predecessor have grimly adhered to the line of a bypass laid down before the last war—a bypass which everyone knows is unlikely to be built. I have


drawn attention to this in correspondence, and I ask the Minister to give immediate attention to the problem, which is of great importance to that town.

10.15 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): The opportunity to debate the employment situation and prospects in North-East Wales is most welcome. The presence of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales beside me signifies the interest of his office and his own deep personal interest as constituency member for Flint, East. Within North-East Wales there are several areas with different employment characteristics. Therefore, the most constructive way I can approach the subject is by considering the different employment situations in a number of those areas.
Although I agree that communications are a vital matter, I do not agree with the strictures put forward by the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) in respect of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport. I understand that there are two miles of dual carriageway from Queensferry to the English border which have just been announced.

Sir A. Meyer: The point I was making was as follows: although there are two miles of dual carriageway to the English border, is any corresponding action being taken on the English side of the border? As far as I am aware, nothing is being done in that respect.

Mr. Booth: This evening I am discussing North-East Wales and not the English side of the border.
Perhaps I may start with the subject of Shotton, which is an area of great employment concern. We appreciate that 5,500 jobs in the British Steel Corporation in iron and steelmaking and hot rolling are at stake there at present. The proposal to close the Shotton works was suspended by the Labour Government earlier this year. That action was taken after the February election and we believe that in employment terms it was well justified.
It is important that any closure of this nature and the decision whether it is to take place should be subject to the most thorough review. I understand that my

noble Friend the Minister of State at the Department of Industry will soon announce the result of this review. Although we hope that work at Shotton in steel making and hot rolling will continue, we in my Department have felt it right to make contingency plans along with the Manpower Services Commission against the possibility that the decision at the end of the review will be one for closure.
The plans which have been made aim at bringing aid to any worker who is made redundant. The Employment Services Agency has been in discussion with the British Steel Corporation to ensure that, should it be necessary, there should be provision immediately available for registration and placing facilities. The Training Services Agency has arranged, if necessary, to offer training opportunities in the area.
Another major matter relates to the Hawker Siddeley establishment at Broughton, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Flint, West. At the Broughton factory, work is being done on the HS146. The hon. Gentleman said that Hawker Siddeley had backed its judgment. I should like to add that the Government with public money have backed their judgment in terms of Hawker Siddeley because the HS146 is a joint company and Government project. This does not appear to, have stopped Hawker Siddeley from wishing to make a unilateral decision to cancel the project.
However, the Government are carefully examining the firm's case for cancellation, although on first examination its case is not very convincing. No doubt my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry in considering the proposition will have some concern for the question whether the industry which he is required by our party manifesto to nationalise will have within it capacity for modern civil airframes. Fortunately, few workers engaged on the HS146 at Broughton would lose their jobs if the project were cancelled. This is in no small part due to the success of the HS125 executive jet.
Another worrying feature of the employment situation at Shotton relates to short-time working at Courtaulds. Clearly, more orders are needed. I hope that some of the measures announced in the Budget last week will help.
We have heard again tonight a plea for development area status. I take it that this relates to the Shotton area. We could not justify development area status for the Shotton area on the present unemployment figures. In October 1974, unemployment in the Shotton travel-to-work area was 3·3 per cent., which is below the average for Wales.
However, I take the point that the statistics are not necessarily the sole criterion for development area status, and I welcome the assurance that I have from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry that he will be prepared immediately to reconsider this question whether Shotton should have development area status if there is any change in the position. The hon. Gentleman may take it that the closure or continuation of a steel works would be one factor determining whether for this purpose there was any change in that position.
Another area in North-East Wales which has its own employment characteristics is the Wrexham travel-to-work area. This area was granted development area status by a Labour Government in 1966. In the past six months there has been an increase in unemployment in the area from 2,118 to 2,391. As one might expect, this has been accompanied by a fall in the number of unfilled vacancies.
My advice from officers in the area is that firms there are suspending recruitment, that employment of women in the area is very heavily dependent upon the electronics industry and that one major electronics firm in the area has already abandoned its night shift and declared redundancies. The reason is a loss of orders. Here again, we hope that the measures announced last week by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be of help in this connection.
In the Wrexham travel-to-work area, 12 months ago there was a closure of considerable significance—that of the Gresford colliery. In this case, 953 men lost their jobs. Redeployment of these men has not been easy. Many of them are over 50 years of age, and 320 are still unemployed. However, most of these ex-miners who have taken on new

jobs have become factory production workers. It is most encouraging to hear employers in that area speak very highly of the calibre and adaptability of those ex-miners who have come to work in factory production. There are still vacancies in the area for this kind of work, and I am glad that Wrexham Employment Office has full job centre facilities and therefore is better equipped than many other areas to deal with problems of redeployment.
Since the hon. Gentleman has done so, I wish to say a few words about Rhyl. Although, strictly speaking, it is not in my Department's North-East Wales subdivision, Rhyl is in an intermediate area, employment there tends to be seasonal, and unemployment figures include a number of older people who have moved to the area in preparation for retirement. Nevertheless, there is an underlying male unemployment problem with a shortage of new jobs in Rhyl. There are an estimated 240 jobs in the pipeline, 170 of these being for men.
In recognition of this situation, the Department of Industry has just built a 10,000 square foot advance factory at Rhyl. It was completed this month, and the Department has drawn it to the attention of suitable industrialists. I hope that the presence of the advance factory will enable the Department to persuade a number of other people to come to look at the area who may set up employment there in premises other than the advance factory.
I turn now to the prospects for North-East Wales as we see them. It is the Government's policy to interest new firms in this area. Some of those whom we have sought to encourage have been reluctant to locate at Shotton for the simple reason that there is no evidence of a sufficient number of men seeking work in the area. If steel making at Shotton were terminated, the position would dramatically change and more new industry could be aided by the Government to come to that area and be expected to do so. The Department of Industry has had some considerable successes in other areas where closures have taken place and has achieved, by the generous use of selective aid, the creation of a number of new jobs to offset the effects of closure and to aid redeployment.
In Wrexham the industrial estate will be substantially expanded. The acquisition of land for this purpose is well advanced and a 30,000 square foot advance factory was authorised in September this year. Mid-November figures published today show a small fall in the total number of unemployed in Wales and a larger fall in the seasonally adjusted number.
In the struggle to overcome our economic problem, our greatest asset is the working skill and capacity of our people. In the context of this debate, our policies in tackling economic problems can therefore be judged in North-East Wales by the extent to which they assist and enable people effectively to apply that skill and capacity.

Orders of the Day — BOMB EXPLOSIONS (BIRMINGHAM)

Mr. Eyre: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I raise with you the matter of the reports which are being received of the dreadful situation in Birmingham and express to you, in view of the extreme feelings of revulsion which are being experienced in the city, a request that the Home Secretary should come to the House at once and make a statement to the House on that situation or that he should give an assurance that a statement will be made first thing tomorrow morning?

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Mr. Denis Howell): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House would immediately wish the Government to associate themselves with the sentiments expressed, no doubt on both sides of the House, at this totally lunatic and senseless horror that has been perpetrated in Birmingham and to express immediate sympathy with the forces there.
I hope that the House will accept that the Home Secretary, with whom I have been in touch, will certainly want to make a statement to the House at the first possible moment, certainly in the morning. He is, however, unable to do so tonight for the simple reason that it would be unreasonable, in an effort to get the information to give to the House, to disturb the police and the emergency services who, I understand, are acting magnificently in dealing with the situation confronting them in Birmingham. I hope

that the House will accept that statement of the position and will be content to await my right hon. Friend's statement in the morning.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In view of the gravity of the situation and the distressing circumstances, I am sure that the House will appreciate that, although it is not a point of order, the Minister would no doubt have been quite ready to give way for this issue to be raised. Since there is nothing that we can do tonight except to await the Home Secretary's statement in the morning, I think that the House should pursue this serious matter tomorrow morning. The House is due to adjourn in two or three minutes. I have no choice in the matter, because I am bound by the rules of the House.

Mr. Stainton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It would have been unconscionable and unpardonable for the House to adjourn tonight and for hon. Members to go home to bed without having made an utterance about this disgusting affair.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed, and probably will express, their deep feelings on this matter. When more information is available tomorrow morning the House will be in a more considered state of mind to express a judgment on this terrible issue.

Mr. Eyre: I think that, as you said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it would be desirable for the Home Secretary to make a full statement on this dreadful situation tomorrow. I should like to say how much I appreciate the concern and sympathy expressed by the Minister of State on behalf of all hon. Members in the House and that it will be appreciated in Birmingham.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: May I make it clear to the House that it was not for me to say whether the Home Secretary should come to the House, but the Minister had already expressed that opinion. I believe that the obvious indignation in the Chamber at present is in itself an expression of what the whole House will feel as the news spreads through the country.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.